pottstown landfill and recycling center annual … › wm › pottstown › pcp › 2013q3 ›...
TRANSCRIPT
POTTSTOWN LANDFILL AND RECYCLING CENTER
ANNUAL MACROINVERTEBRATE COMMUNITY REPORT
WASTE MANAGEMENT DISPOSAL SERVICES OF PENNSYLVANIA, INC.
MONTGOMERY COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
August 2013
Prepared for:
Waste Management Disposal Services of Pennsylvania
Pottstown Landfill and Recycling Center
1425 Sell Road
Pottstown, Pennsylvania 19464
Prepared by:
STV Energy Services, Inc.
205 West Welsh Drive
Douglassville, Pennsylvania 19518
(610) 385-8200
STV Project No. 04-11993
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
1.0 BACKGROUND .............................................................................................................................................. 1
2.0 METHODS ....................................................................................................................................................... 1
2.1 MACROINVERTEBRATE SAMPLES ........................................................................................................ 1 2.2 ABIOTIC PARAMETERS ............................................................................................................................ 2 2.3 DATA ANALYSIS ........................................................................................................................................ 3 2.4 WATER QUALITY ....................................................................................................................................... 4
3.0 STUDY AREA AND SAMPLE STATION DESCRIPTIONS ..................................................................... 4
3.1 STUDY AREA .............................................................................................................................................. 4 3.2 SAMPLE STATION 0 ................................................................................................................................... 4 3.3 SAMPLE STATION 1 (BRIDGE) ................................................................................................................. 5 3.4 STATION 4 (LEVENGOOD ROAD) ........................................................................................................... 6
4.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ...................................................................................................................... 6
4.1 WATER QUALITY/STREAM CHARACTERISTICS ................................................................................ 6 4.2 MACROINVERTEBRATE SAMPLING RESULTS ................................................................................... 7
4.2.1 Sample Station 1 - Levengood Road ...................................................................................................... 7 4.2.2 Sample Station 4 - Downstream of Permit Area .................................................................................... 8 4.2.3 1998 – 2013 Data Evaluation and Comparison .................................................................................... 8
5.0 SUMMARY ...................................................................................................................................................... 9
6.0 REFERENCES .............................................................................................................................................. 12
Figures
1 Project Location Map
Appendices
A Data Field Sheets for Stream Macroinvertebrates and Characterization
B Photograph Log
C Station 0 Macroinvertebrate Sample Results
D Tables
1 Water Quality Results for Stations 1 and 4 (1988 - 2013)
2 Pollution Tolerance Indices
3 Station 1 Sample Results
4 Station 4 Sample Results
E Resumes of STV Personnel
ii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In June 2013, STV Energy Services, Incorporated (STV) conducted a benthic macroinvertebrate
survey of three stations along Goose Run, a second order tributary to Manatawny Creek in
Montgomery and Berks Counties, Pennsylvania. The survey was performed on behalf of Waste
Management Disposal Services of Pennsylvania, Inc. to satisfy the requirements of Condition
No. 14 of Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) Operating Permit No.
100549 issued to Pottstown Landfill on 19 April 1989. In accordance with Condition No. 14,
STV sampled two designated stream stations (Stations 1 and 4, one upstream and one
downstream of the landfill). A third station (Station 0), located upstream of the landfill, was also
sampled as part of the survey. Station 0, which was selected at the request of the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, is located near the headwaters of Goose Run. It was selected as a spatial
control to evaluate a watershed improvement program implemented by STV upstream from the
traditional survey area. In addition to the collection of macroinvertebrate specimens, the survey
also included evaluations of substrate types and riparian vegetation, and measurements of
dissolved oxygen (DO), pH, specific conductance, and stream flow velocity at each sample
station.
Macroinvertebrate field sampling techniques and qualitative post-processing of data were in
accordance with state and federal guidelines for stream surveys. Since 1998, an 800-micron
mesh, D-frame kick net has been utilized to collect representative samples at each station. Pre-
1998 samples were collected using a 595-micron mesh D-frame kick net. Based on this
equipment variation, and in accordance with Comment No. 1 of PADEP’s technical review letter
(November 2000), valid statistical comparisons between pre-1998 and post-1998 surveys are not
possible and are therefore no longer included in the annual survey reports. Since sample
methodology has remained consistent since 1998, statistical comparisons between Stations 1 and
4 from 1998 forward are included herein.
Along with routine polymetric calculations, climatological occurrences over the last five years
were also reviewed. The review concluded that the Goose Run watershed has been impacted by
severe drought and subsequent flooding since late spring 1998. In the aftermath of Hurricane
Floyd (September 1999), analyses of macroinvertebrate data indicate a general increase in
community structure values, including taxa richness, species diversity, and EPT/Chironomidae
ratios.
Year 2013 analyses of the various metrics used to describe the biological condition at each
station indicate that the integrity of the benthic macroinvertebrate communities within the study
area is generally comparable to previous years. Species density and diversity, and community
composition observed at the two sample locations represent an instream structure that has
rebounded well from past drought and flooding conditions within the watershed.
When compared to data from previous years, slight variations in water quality or periodically
reduced metric values cannot be attributed to any specific non-point or point source of pollution.
However, other environmental factors have contributed to moderately stressed communities
within the study area. Two of the most significant factors include extreme variations in stream
flow conditions and variable substrate composition at each of the stations.
iii
Evaluations of abiotic and biological data collected and analyzed over the past 25 years indicate
that the resident macroinvertebrate communities in a second order stream such as Goose Run
exhibit variations in biological structure when subjected to physical disturbances within the
benthic habitat. These variations are likely the result of weather extremes (e.g., drought,
hurricanes, periodic thunderstorms with heavy discharge rates) and other perturbations (possibly
including periodic runoff from adjacent farmlands and roads). Variations in weather patterns can
influence organic enrichment, sediment loading from the surrounding watershed, in-stream
temperatures, pH and other water quality parameters, as well as other parameters such as
diversity and density of benthic assemblages. Variations in macroinvertebrate community
metrics from year to year can be the result of communities adapting in response to environmental
(natural) influences such as recent reductions in rainfall totals and subsequent flooding
conditions from periodic thunderstorms. Generally, recorded increases over time in assorted
benthic measurement parameters indicate that macroinvertebrate communities in Goose Run
have been maintained during climatological influences that typically result in alterations in flow
conditions, runoff characteristics, sediment composition, and other abiotic conditions within the
stream.
1
1.0 BACKGROUND
In May, 1988, Waste Management Disposal Services of Pennsylvania, Inc. (WM), conducted a
surface water resource assessment that included (among others) the collection, characterization,
and cataloging of resident benthic macroinvertebrate communities within Goose Run, a tributary
to Manatawny Creek in Montgomery and Berks Counties, Pennsylvania. The assessment was
performed in accordance with Sections 273.118(a) (4) and 277.118(a) (4) of the Municipal
Waste Regulations in support of Waste Management’s Re-permitting Application for the
Northern Expansion. Data collected during the assessment were utilized in the Pennsylvania
Department of Environmental Resources (PADER) Operating Permit No. 100549, which was
issued to Pottstown Landfill on April 19, 1989. Since 1988, Waste Management has performed
subsequent annual assessments of Goose Run’s water and habitat quality (i.e., biological
integrity) in accordance with Condition No. 14 of the operating permit.
Included herein are descriptions of water quality, riparian vegetation, and stream substrate types
at three sampling stations along Goose Run (Stations 0, 1, and 4). It is important to note that
macroinvertebrate, habitat, and water quality data from Station 0 are presented for informational
purposes only. Station 0 was added in 1996 in accordance with a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
request to further evaluate and monitor channel improvement and wetland mitigation activities
performed along Goose Run. In accordance with the original intent of Condition No. 14 of the
operating permit, only data from Stations 1 and 4 were subjected to rigorous qualitative and
quantitative comparisons. Data from these two stations were compared with previously collected
data to assess cause and effect relative to degrees of biological impairment, if any, above and
below the existing permit area. This report contains biotic and abiotic sampling data from the
previous twenty five years for ease of comparison.
Macroinvertebrate collections, habitat descriptions, and water quality measurements were
performed by Amanda Schellhamer, Laura Rowlands, and Trisha Qualio, STV Environmental
Scientists with experience in aquatic sampling procedures. Samples were sorted and specimens
identified by Normandeau Associates, Inc. This report was prepared by Amanda Schellhamer
and Steven Sottung, STV Project Manager. Resumes of key individuals are provided in
Appendix E.
2.0 METHODS
2.1 MACROINVERTEBRATE SAMPLES
Benthic macroinvertebrate field sampling techniques were in accordance with PADEP’s
Guidelines for Benthic Macroinvertebrate Stream Surveys for Landfills (1988). Qualitative post-
processing of quantitative data, which included some statistical evaluations of data from 1998,
and 2000 through 2012 were performed by STV in accordance with EPA’s Rapid Bioassessment
Protocols for Use in Streams and Rivers (Plafkin, 1989), and previous assessment methods
conducted between 1988 and 1998. Macroinvertebrate sample collection methods utilized for
the 2013 sample program were identical to those used during STV’s previous benthic sampling
programs within Goose Run.
Sampling began by gathering qualitative macroinvertebrate collections in shallow pools,
backwaters, and riffle areas using a D-frame kick net of 800-micron mesh. A total of three
2
substation locations were identified and sampled at each station location. In the riffle areas, the
net was positioned closely against the bottom substrates, with the water flowing into the net. The
substrate upstream of the net was manually agitated to allow dislodged organisms to be swept
downstream into the net. In order to maximize the number of organisms collected, nettings were
performed for three minutes, moving diagonally across the riffle area. In the pool and backwater
areas, the net was placed in the water column and the underlying substrate was agitated. The net
was then gently swept through the water over the disturbed area. Similar to the riffle areas,
sample time at each of the pool and backwater substations was three minutes. All of the
substation kick samples were composited to produce one general sample for each of the three
locations.
Macrobenthic specimens were preserved in the field in wide mouth glass jars containing 70%
isopropyl alcohol. Samples were submitted to Normandeau Associates, Inc, in Stowe,
Pennsylvania for processing. Invertebrates were identified to the lowest taxon practicable using
a dissection microscope (45x magnification), with genus the desired taxonomic end point.
Individuals within the Chironomidae (midge) family were identified to family, due to the amount
of time necessary to prepare them for generic identification (clear and slide mount).
Taxonomic identification was conducted using the following taxonomic keys:
Merrit, R.W. and K.W. Cummins. 1984. An Introduction to the Aquatic Insects of
North America. Second ed. Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company, Dubuque, Iowa.
Pennak, R.W. 1989. Fresh Water Invertebrates of the United States. Third ed. Protozoa
to Mollesca. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York.
Pekarsky, B.L., P.R. Fraissinet, M.A. Penton, and DJ. Conklin. 1990. Freshwater
Macroinvertebrates of Northeastern North America. Cornell University Press, Cornell,
New York.
2.2 ABIOTIC PARAMETERS
Determination of the biological condition of Goose Run would not be comprehensive without the
evaluation of abiotic features. In order to fully characterize stream conditions, the field team
also considered outside influences such as nutrient loading from the surrounding watershed.
Vegetative communities adjacent to each sample location were evaluated to assess the type of
food available to the stream ecosystem, and its influence on macroinvertebrate communities.
Additionally, the habitat evaluation component of the assessment included the collection of
physiochemical parameters (e.g., instream features such as sediment and substrate type, stream
size, and water quality characteristics). Data sheets were utilized to record the specified
information (Appendix A).
3
2.3 DATA ANALYSIS
In order to evaluate and compare macrobenthic communities and make a judgment on the
presence or absence of biological impairment at each station, STV utilized qualitative biosurvey
data, stream habitat data, and water quality information. An integrated benthic analysis was
completed to include the following ecological parameters:
Total number of taxa and specimens (Taxa/Species Richness);
Total number of pollutant sensitive taxa (EPT Index);
A ratio between sensitive and tolerant taxa (Ratio of EPT and Chironomidae
abundances);
Taxa/Species Richness Indices: This metric is a simplified species diversity index, and is often
used as the first measure of ecosystem health. Richness is determined by the total number of taxa
and specimens identified in a sample. Taxa richness values should demonstrate a proportional
increase with increasing water quality, diversity, and suitability.
EPT Index: The EPT Index is the total number of distinct taxa within the three most sensitive
orders of aquatic insects: Ephemeroptera (mayflies), Plecoptera (stoneflies), and Trichoptera
(caddisflies). Typically, the EPT Index generally increases with increasing water quality. The
EPT metric value summarizes taxon richness for the insect orders expected to disappear or
dramatically decrease in the event of environmental disturbance.
Ratio of EPT and Chironomidae Abundances: This ratio is a measurement of community
balance based on the relative abundance of the family Chironomidae and EPT taxa. Taxa within
the EPT orders generally are considered intolerant of most forms of pollution and are often
poorly represented in samples from stressed environments. Conversely, the midge family
Chironomidae is considered to be pollution tolerant. The EPT and Chironomidae abundance ratio
uses relative abundance of these indicator groups as a measure of community balance.
Essentially, having a fairly even distribution of all four groups (with substantial representation in
the sensitive groups) reflects a good biotic condition.
Brillouin's Diversity Index and Evenness Values: These index values are statistics that
compare the distribution of individuals among all taxa observed in a sample. Maximum
diversity is obtained when the number of individuals in a sample is evenly distributed. Diversity
values tend to vary according to how samples are processed. However, for this collection, values
less than 1.25 can be considered low, whereas diverse communities should exhibit values greater
than 1.50. Evenness provides a comparison of relative diversity, a sample's actual diversity with
the maximum diversity attainable by that sample. Values range between 0.00 and 1.00. Samples
with values close to 1.00 represent a community in which the individual taxa are optimally
distributed. Diversity indices and evenness values also can be used to evaluate a community's
ability to continue as a functional entity in the presence of pollution stress and to recover once
pollution problems are corrected.
4
2.4 WATER QUALITY
The water quality measurements were conducted following guidelines established in Kopp and
McKee (EPA-600/4-79-020, 1983). Temperature, dissolved oxygen, pH, and specific
conductance were measured with a Horiba U-10 field-sampling device. Stream velocity was
measured with a Marsh-McBirney Model 201 current meter.
3.0 STUDY AREA AND SAMPLE STATION DESCRIPTIONS
3.1 STUDY AREA
STV collected biotic and abiotic data from three sample stations along Goose Run, which is
located within the Schuylkill River drainage basin. The location of each stream station is
indicated on Figure 1. Goose Run, which is a second-order stream, originates approximately one
mile south of the village of Colebrookdale, at an elevation of 320 feet above mean sea level
(amsl). Portions of Upper and West Pottsgrove Townships (Montgomery County) and Douglass
Township (Berks County) drain toward Goose Run. From its point of origin, Goose Run flows
south/southwest approximately 2.2 miles toward its confluence with Manatawny Creek in
Montgomery County. Two small tributaries define the headwaters of Goose Run. The
tributaries converge at a point approximately 2,000 feet north of the northern boundary of the
permit area, and about 250 feet east of the north/south stretch of Levengood Road to form the
main channel of Goose Run. As it flows south from the convergence point, Goose Run forms
the western perimeter of Waste Management’s Northern Expansion Permit Area. The
watercourse is impounded within the Dandy Dam before its confluence with Manatawny Creek
at an elevation of approximately 160 feet amsl. The stream drains a watershed of approximately
1,215 acres. Stream gradient through the study area is 70 feet per mile, or 1.3 percent (Figure 1).
Pennsylvania Code Title 25, Chapter 93; Water Quality Standards designates Manatawny Creek
and all unnamed tributaries to Manatawny Creek (including Goose Run) as protected for the
maintenance and/or propagation of fish species including the family Salmonidae and additional
flora and fauna which are indigenous to a cold water habitat (CWF).
Specimens were collected during normal weather conditions.
3.2 SAMPLE STATION 0
Sample Station 0 was not included in the original monitoring program that was initiated in 1988.
Station 0 is located on the eastern fork of the Goose Run headwaters, approximately 1,000 feet
west of Chestnut Grove Road, in Montgomery County (Figure 1). Since the 2003 sample for this
site a large tree has fallen across the stream, blocking flow and creating a natural dam upstream
of the sample area. During the 2013 sampling program, stream velocity and flow conditions
within the two upper forks of Goose Run were similar to conditions encountered during other
previous sampling years; that is, stream flow and velocity in the eastern fork was greater than the
western fork. Station 0 is located upstream from the wetland creation and stream enhancement
project area that was completed in 1997.
On June 21, 2013, stream velocity at Station 0 was recorded at 0.01 cubic feet per second (cfs),
and the water was clear (Appendix B - photograph log). There was no detectable odor present at
5
the sampling site. The stream width at Station 0 (between riffle/run and pool areas) ranged
between 2 to 15 feet and stream depth was 4 to 6 inches (riffle/run) and 20 to 30 inches (pool).
Substrate material in the pool was composed of boulders (>10 inches), cobbles (2.5 to 10 inches),
and gravel (0.1 to 2.5 inches). Substrate material in the riffle included some boulders, cobbles,
and gravel. The station was located upstream from a check-dam and within a reach of the stream
that was partially shaded (approximately 50%) with mixed hardwoods including white oak
(Quercus alba), red oak (Quercus rubra), shagbark hickory (Carya ovata), green ash (Fraxinus
pennsylvanica), white ash (Fraxinus americana), and red maple (Acer rubrum). The riparian
community at Station 0 consisted primarily of various species of grasses and forbes. Herbaceous
vegetation surrounding the stream was dominated by jewelweed (Impatiens capensis). Station 0
was located at approximately 260 feet amsl. Land surrounding Station 0 had moderately sloping
terrain to the north and south of the sample location, and uses included pasture, fields,
agricultural land and forested land.
Approximately 5% of substrate materials, including boulders, cobbles, gravel and submerged
aquatic vegetation (SAV) were covered with periphytic algae. The sample area consisted of a
riffle, a run, and a pool.
3.3 SAMPLE STATION 1 (BRIDGE)
Station 1 (background or reference station) was located at the northern tip of the permit area,
immediately downstream from the bridge crossing at Levengood Road (Figure 1). Instream
habitat improvements (e.g., check-dams and bank stabilizers) associated with the aforementioned
stream mitigation projects were located between Station 0 and Station 1. Station 1 was located a
sufficient distance upstream from the limits of the permit area to be unaffected by potential
discharges from the landfill.
Stream velocity at Station 1 (riffle/run) was recorded at 0.01 cfs. Stream turbidity was clear
(Appendix B - photograph log). As with Station 0, no detectable odor was identified during
sampling procedures. Substrate materials in both the riffle and the run consisted primarily of
boulders and gravel. Stream depths at sampling points ranged from 3 to 6 inches in the riffle/run
area and up to 20 inches in the pool area (pools in the vicinity ranged from 20 to 30 inches in
depth). Stream width ranged from 12 to 15 feet. The location was partially shaded (about 60%
cover) with a mixture of shrubs and deciduous trees. Herbaceous plants primarily included
jewelweed. Shrubs included fox grape. Tree species located primarily around the Levengood
Road bridge included Tree-of-Heaven (Ailanthus altissima), box elder (Acer negundo), Norway
maple (Acer platanoides), and black cherry (Prunus serotina).
Similar to previous years, minnow species (e.g., longnose and blacknose dace, and darters),
crayfish and tadpoles were observed in standing pools of water within the sample area. A small
percentage of the substrate material across the sample area was covered with periphytic algae.
The sample area consisted of pool, riffle and run areas. The upper reaches of the riffle area flow
across exposed bedrock.
6
3.4 STATION 4 (LEVENGOOD ROAD)
Station 4 is located approximately 150 to 200 feet upstream from the Dandy Dam impoundment
area, north of the confluence with Manatawny Creek (Figure 1). The station is located below the
permit area and the stream and habitat improvement areas.
Stream velocity was 0.01 cfs (riffle/run and pool areas), and once again turbidity was clear
(Appendix B - photograph log). Substrate composition within the approximate 120-foot sample
stretch was comparable in both pool and riffle areas. Substrate was primarily composed of
cobbles and gravel. Approximately 50% of the cobble and gravel substrate and minimal SAV
were covered with periphytic algae. Stream width ranged from approximately 8 feet (riffle/run)
to 20 feet (pool), and stream depth ranged from 12 inches (pool) and 3 to 6 inches (riffle/run).
Streamside cover, which predominantly included broadleaf trees and herbaceous vegetation,
created shade over the stream course in the area of Station 4. Jewelweed dominated herbaceous
plants in the area. Tree species included red maple, white oak, American beech (Fagus
grandifolia), black willow (Salix nigra), and sycamore (Platanus occidentalis). Station 4 is
bounded to the east by a large upland with wetland pockets throughout. The stretch of stream
within the sampling area is bounded to the west by a steep embankment and forested overhang.
4.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Station 0 was added in 1996 in accordance with a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers request to
further evaluate and monitor channel improvement and wetland mitigation activities performed
along Goose Run. While it is of interest to evaluate the habitat and macroinvertebrate
community at Station 0, it should be noted that the original requirements, as indicated in
Condition 14 of the operating permit, included benthic macroinvertebrate sampling at only two
stations (1 and 4) on Goose Run (one upstream of the landfill permit area and one downstream)
during the third quarter of each year. Therefore, in accordance with the requirements of the
original permit, qualitative and quantitative comparisons between benthic communities and
habitat are limited to Stations 1 and 4 only. Water quality, habitat, and raw macrobenthic
numbers for Station 0 are presented in Appendix C.
4.1 WATER QUALITY/STREAM CHARACTERISTICS
Physical and chemical factors of the surrounding environment are among the most compelling
determinants of the biological structure of benthic macroinvertebrates at any location. Such
being the case, STV collected abiotic measurements of pH, conductivity, temperature, dissolved
oxygen (DO), and stream flow velocity at each station location.
Table 1 presents 25 years of water quality field data from Goose Run (1988 through 1998, and
2000 – 2013). In 2013, stream flow velocities at Stations 1 and 4 were consistent with the
previous eight years (with the exception of 2008, when stream velocities were impacted by more
significant rainfall amounts). Dissolved oxygen at Station 1 (8.88 mg/l) and Station 4 (9.23) are
within the optimal range for a healthy and stable aquatic ecosystem (6 to 14 ppm).
The Station 1 pH level (7.96) was slightly higher than the previous year and was within the
optimal range for a healthy and stable aquatic ecosystem (6.5 to 8.5). The Station 4 pH level
7
(8.1) is within the optimal range and slightly above the average over the last 25 years of data
collection (7.41).
The stream temperature at Station 1was 20C and Station 4 was 20.6C. The temperatures were
slightly lower than the previous year (22.3C) and were identical to the average for each station
location (20 for Station 1 and 20.6 for Station 4). Stream temperatures are related to the velocity
of the stream through open, shaded, or partially shaded areas, depth of stream, substrate
materials, and the time of year that samples are collected. It is notable that stream conditions
(including temperature, DO, conductivity, and pH) are also impacted by preceding weather
events (downpours, thunderstorms, weather fronts, prolonged drought, etc.).
Neither station emanated detectable odors when sediments were disturbed during sample
collection.
Terrestrial conditions differed between Stations 1 and 4. Adjacent woodlands and grass/shrub
cover were found at both stations. Station 1 is abutted by gently sloping woodlands and fields.
The Levengood Road bridge is located immediately upstream from Station 1. Lands adjacent to
and east of Station 4 exhibited low topographic relief and included palustrine emergent (PEM)
wetlands and uplands, as evidenced by existing vegetation and hydrology. An almost vertical
embankment, which extended along the western edge of the watercourse at Station 4, defined the
downstream limits of the sampling area.
4.2 MACROINVERTEBRATE SAMPLING RESULTS
All macroinvertebrate taxa collected from 1988 through 2013, their common names, available
pollution tolerance indices, and Hilsenhoff Biotic Indices are listed in Table 2 (Appendix D).
Tolerance indices utilize a revised Hilsenhoff (1988) scale of 0-10. The 0-10 scale was adopted
for use with EPA’s Rapid Bioassessment Protocol III and was modified to include non-arthropod
species. Low tolerance values indicate pollution sensitivity among specific organisms. Since
1988, density and diversity indices have reflected a rich benthic community supported by good
quality habitat. In 2013, a total of 23 taxa and 247 specimens were collected from Station 1
(Table 3 in Appendix D). A total of 25 taxa and 426 specimens were collected from Station 4
(Table 4 in Appendix D).
4.2.1 Sample Station 1 - Levengood Road
In 2013, 247 specimens representing 23 taxa were collected from Station 1, located upstream
from the permit area. The representative taxa, number of individuals collected, and associated
Hilsenhoff sensitivity enumerations are listed in Table 3. The following table presents the five
most dominant taxa among the specimens collected (expressed in percent abundance):
Scientific Name
Common Name
Number
Collected
Percent
Abundance
Tolerance
Values
Biotic Index
Chironomidae Midges 111 44.9 6.0-8.0 6
Stenacron Mayfly 48 19.4 1.7-7.1 4
Cheumatopsyche Caddisfly 13 5.3 6.6 6
Psephenus Water Penny 12 4.9 2.5 4
Neoporus Diving Beetle 11 4.5 -- 5
8
The number of specimens captured from EPT and Chironomidae taxa produced an
EPT/Chironomidae ratio of .063, which is below the median value recorded for Station 1 since
the study began in 1988. This ratio indicates an unbalanced EPT and Chironomidae ratio for the
year 2013 sampling program.
4.2.2 Sample Station 4 - Downstream of Permit Area
In 2013, 426 specimens representing 25 taxa were collected from Station 4, located downstream
from the permit area. The representative taxa, number of individuals collected, and associated
Hilsenhoff sensitivity enumerations are listed in Table 4. The following table presents the five
most dominant taxa among the specimens collected (expressed in percent abundance):
Scientific Name
Common Name
Number
Collected
Percent Abundance
Tolerance
Values
Biotic
Index
Chironomidae Midges 268 62.9 6.0-8.0 6
Stenacron Mayfly 39 9.2 1.7-7.1 4
Baetis Mayfly 15 3.5 1.8-7.2 6
Dugesia Flatworm 14 3.3 7.5 7
Perlesta Stonefly 14 3.3 4.9 4
The number of specimens captured from EPT and Chironomidae taxa produced an EPT/
Chironomidae ratio of .03, which is below the median value recorded for Station 4 since the
study began in 1988. This below average ratio is most likely the result of recent heavy rains in
the previous weeks.
4.2.3 1998 – 2013 Data Evaluation and Comparison
Station 1
The proceeding section details individual metrics utilized to describe community health from
year to year at Station 1.
1. Taxa/Species Richness Indices (1998 - 2012)
Total number of taxa (range):
- from 10 (2000) to 38 (2001)
- mean = 23.2; std. dev. = 8.4
- 2013 taxa value - 23
Total number of specimens (range):
- from 108 (2000) to 6875 (2003)
- mean = 1424.3; std. dev. = 2009.8
- 2013 specimen value - 247
2. EPT Index (1998 - 2012)
Total number of EPT taxa (range):
- from 1 (2000) to 15 (2001)
- mean = 6.9; std. dev. = 4.1
- 2013 EPT value - 7
9
3. EPT/Chironomidae Ratio (1998 - 2012)
Ratio of EPT to Chironomidae taxa (range):
- from 0.02 (2000) to 42 (2004)
- mean = 3.2; std. dev. = 11.1
- 2013 EPT/Chironomidae value – .72
In comparison with data from the previous fifteen sampling years, 2013 data represent values for
taxa/species richness (density) and number of EPT taxa within the previous sampling years’
average.
Station 4
The proceeding section details individual metrics utilized to describe community health from
year to year at Station 4.
Taxa/Species Richness Indices (1998 - 2012)
Total number of taxa (range):
- from 10 (2000) to 37 (2005)
- mean = 26.2; std. dev. = 8.7
- 2013 taxa value - 25
Total number of specimens (range):
- from 118 (1998) to 2781 (2003)
- mean = 808.3; std. dev. = 709.03
- 2013 specimen value – 426
EPT Index (1998 - 2012)
Total number of EPT taxa (range):
- from 2 (2000) to 15 (2003)
- mean = 9.1; std. dev. = 4.38
- 2013 EPT value – 8
EPT/Chironomidae Ratio (1998 - 2012)
Ratio of EPT to Chironomidae taxa (range):
- from 0.08 (2000) to 2.69 (2004)
- mean = 0.91; std. dev. =0.87
- 2013 EPT/Chironomidae value – .33
In comparison with data from the previous fifteen sampling years, 2013 data represent average
taxa/species richness (density) values, number of EPT taxa, and a slightly below average
EPT/Chironomidae ratio.
5.0 SUMMARY
In mid-June 2013, STV conducted benthic macroinvertebrate sampling at three stations within
Goose Run, adjacent to Pottstown Landfill as part of an annual monitoring requirement specified
in PADEP Permit #100549. Sample collection methodologies and locations have remained
consistent since 1988, with one exception. The only inconsistency in methodology involved the
use of a different diameter mesh in the D-frame kick net from pre- and post-1998 samples. Prior
to 1998, an environmental sampling team other than STV utilized a 595-micron mesh net; post-
10
1998 samples were collected by STV using an 800-micron mesh net. Since 1998, STV has
performed benthic sampling in accordance with the most recent PADEP guidance for conducting
macroinvertebrate surveys (Guidelines for Benthic Macroinvertebrate Stream Surveys for
Landfills (PADER, 1988)). The document recommends the use of an 800-900 micron mesh net
for wadeable streams. Based on the variation in mesh sizes, and in accordance with previous
PADEP technical comments, this annual survey report no longer includes statistical comparisons
between pre- and post-1998 sample data. Additionally, this report includes sensitivity
enumerations as identified by the PADEP in a table entitled Hilsenhoff Biotic Index Scores
(March 1997).
Evaluations of physical, chemical, and biological data that were collected as part of the stream
survey indicate that post-1998 Goose Run continues to recover from stressed conditions that
resulted from extreme climatological and the resultant environmental stresses (i.e., significant
drought and flooding events). An evaluation of all 2013 sampling data presented herein does not
indicate adverse impacts (i.e., pollution) to water quality within Goose Run that can be attributed
to the permit area. Comparisons of water quality data over twenty four years of sampling reveal
normal fluctuations in the stream’s abiotic and biotic characteristics, which are related to
temporal changes. Accordingly, there is no indication that fluctuations are in any way related to
potential deleterious impacts attributable to the permit area.
Though Goose Run watershed had experienced periodic flushing from significant rainfall events
(thunderstorms with heavy rainfall totals and increased discharge rates) the weeks prior to the
collection date, sampling for the year 2013 report occurred during a period of relatively normal
stream flow volumes in Southeastern Pennsylvania.
An outcome of the 2013 survey was a more balanced stream community as represented by the
ratio of EPT and Chironomidae specimens within the Station 1 sample. Sampling at Station 1
resulted in the collection of a total of 80 EPT specimens (representing 7 taxa) and 111
Chironomidae specimens, resulting in an EPT/Chironomidae ratio of 0.72. This represents the
4th
highest EPT/Chironomidae ratio recorded since 1998 and the highest recorded value in four
years.
Conversely, Station 4 collections netted 89 EPT specimens and 268 Chironomids, resulting in an
EPT/Chironomidae ratio of 0.33, which is below the average EPT/Chironomidae ratio of 0.91
(averaged since 1998). It should be noted, however, that the Station 4 EPT/Chironomidae ratio
has been increasing over the last three years (see Appendix D).
As the trend toward greater community balance at Station 4 continues, the lower than average
ratio may have resulted from a shift in stream structure (i.e., disturbance), possibly resulting from
the number of flooding events that preceded the 2013 sampling event. Flooding and the resulting
disturbance are important regulators of diversity and biotic composition in streams. Sampling
data have shown that benthic macroinvertebrate assemblages in Goose Run have been found to
be fairly well adapted to predictable physical disturbances, but unpredictable or severe
disturbances may have negatively affected populations of macroinvertebrates in the stream.
Higher than normal flow events caused by recent storms have affected Goose Run by physically
scouring and moving riverbed structure as well as altering water velocity. If stream velocity is
high enough, an effect can be that macroinvertebrates may be dislodged from rock surfaces; they
may be crushed or enter into the drift of the river. Movement of bed material disturbs the organic
11
layers on rock surfaces, affecting gross primary production, community respiration and net
community production. Species with streamlined or flexible bodies (e.g., worms, midges), and
some with multivoltine life cycles (species that has two or more broods of offspring per year)
have been found to be more adept at surviving in streams with frequent intense floods. Benthic
macroinvertebrates are resilient in that they have the capacity to return to some previous state
following a perturbation as evidenced by community balance ratios trending upward once again.
Acute effects from flooding can be large but have been found to be generally short lived.
Representative EPT numbers in 2013 continue to support the assessment that Goose Run is not
subjected to long-term environmental stress (in particular, chemical stress) from the adjacent
landfill activities. Significant adverse impacts from the landfill would likely have been
accompanied by a significant reduction in or disappearance of pollution-sensitive EPT taxa,
particularly at Station 4. This has not been supported by data collected to date from either of the
two Stations.
Station 1(2013) species diversity (247) was below the 1998–2012 average of 1424 specimens per
year. Taxa richness (23) was on average for the same span, and the 2013 diversity index (1.98)
was above the average of 1.57 for the years 1998-2012. Using conventional values of 1.50 as a
measure of a diverse community structure and 1.25 as a community less diverse, 2013 data
exhibit high overall diversity of species and specimens at Station 1.
Station 4 (2013) species density (426) was below the 1998-2012 average of 808 specimens per
year. Taxa richness (25) was slightly below the average of 26.2 for the same span, and the 2013
diversity index (1.62) was below the average of 2.13 for the years 1998-2012. Using
conventional values of 1.50 as a measure of a diverse community structure and 1.25 as a
community less diverse, 2013 data exhibit lower overall diversity of species and specimens at
Station 4.
Evaluations of abiotic and biological data collected and analyzed over the past 25 years indicate
that the resident macroinvertebrate communities in a second order stream such as Goose Run
exhibit variations in biological structure when subjected to physical disturbances within the
benthic habitat. These variations are likely the result of weather extremes (e.g., drought,
hurricanes, periodic thunderstorms with heavy discharge rates) and other perturbations (possibly
including periodic runoff from adjacent farmlands and roads). Variations in weather patterns can
influence organic enrichment, sediment loading from the surrounding watershed, in-stream
temperatures, pH and other water quality parameters, as well as other parameters such as
diversity and density of benthic assemblages. Variations in macroinvertebrate community
metrics from year to year can be the result of communities adapting in response to environmental
(natural) influences such as recent reductions in rainfall totals and subsequent flooding
conditions from periodic thunderstorms. Generally, recorded increases over time in assorted
benthic measurement parameters indicate that macroinvertebrate communities in Goose Run
have been maintained during climatological influences that typically result in alterations in flow
conditions, runoff characteristics, sediment composition, and other abiotic conditions within the
stream.
12
6.0 REFERENCES
Bode, R.W. 1988. Quality Assurance Workplan for Biological Stream Monitoring in New York
State. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Albany, New York.
Brower, S.E. and J. H. Zar. 1977. Field and Laboratory Methods for General Ecology. William
C. Brown, Company, Dubuque, Iowa.
Hilsenhoff, W.L. 1988. Rapid Field Assessment of Organic Pollution with a Family-Level
Biotic Index. Journal of the North American Benthological Society. Volume 7, Number
1. Pages 65-68.
Klemm, Donald J. 1990. Macroinvertebrate Field and Laboratory Methods for Evaluating the
Biological Integrity of Surface Waters. United States Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA/600/4-90/030), Cincinnati, Ohio.
Kopp, J.F., and G.D. McKee. 1983. Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA/600/4-79/020), Cincinnati, Ohio.
Lenat, David R. 1993. A biotic Index for the Southeastern United States: Derivation and List of
Tolerance Values, with Criteria for Assigning Water Quality Ratings. Journal of the
North American Benthological Society. Volume 12, Number 3 (September). Pages 279-
290.
Merritt, R.W., and K.W. Cummins, editors. 1996. An Introduction to the Aquatic Insects of
North America, Second Edition. Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company, Dubuque, Iowa.
Peckarsky, B.L., et. al. 1990. Freshwater Macroinvertebrates of Northeastern North America.
Cornell University Press, Ithaca, New York.
Pennak, R.W. 1990. Freshwater Invertebrates of the United States, Third Edition. John Wiley
and Sons, Inc. New York, New York.
Plafkin, J.L. et. al. 1989. Rapid Bioassessment Protocols for Use in Streams and Rivers. United
States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA/440/4-89/001), Washington, DC.
Wallace, J.B., 1990 Recovery of Lotic Macroinvertebrate communities from disturbance.
Environ. Manage. 14:605-620.
FIGURES
FIGU
RE
S
Copyright (C) 1997, Maptech, Inc.
075° 41' 00.00" W
075° 41' 00.00" W
075° 40' 00.00" W
075° 40' 00.00" W
075° 39' 00.00" W
075° 39' 00.00" W
040° 18' 00.00" N
040° 18' 00.00" N
040° 17' 00.00" N
040° 17' 00.00" N
040° 16' 00.00" N
040° 16' 00.00" N
5 Sample Station 4
5 Sample Station 1
5 Sample Station 0
Magnetic Declination
12° W
�
APPENDIX AData Field Sheets for
Stream Macroinvertebratesand Characterization
APPE
ND
IX A
PH
YS
ICA
L C
HA
RA
CT
ER
IZA
TIO
N/W
AT
ER
QU
AL
ITY
FIE
LD
DA
TA
SH
EE
T
ST
AT
ION
0
DA
TE
6
/21
/20
13
PH
YS
ICA
L C
HA
RA
CT
ER
IST
ICS
RIP
AR
IAN
ZO
NE
/IN
ST
RE
AM
FE
AT
UR
ES
Pre
do
min
ant
Su
rrou
nd
ing L
and
Use
:
Fo
rest
F
ield
/Pas
ture
A
gri
cult
ura
l R
esid
enti
al
Co
mm
erci
al
Indu
stri
al
Oth
er
Lo
cal
Wat
ersh
ed E
rosi
on
: N
on
e M
od
erat
e H
eav
y
Lo
cal
Wat
ersh
ed N
PS
Po
llu
tion
: N
o E
vid
ence
S
om
e P
ote
nti
al S
ou
rce
Ob
vio
us
So
urc
es
Est
imat
es S
trea
m W
idth
2
-15
fee
t
Est
imat
ed S
trea
m D
epth
: 2
0-3
0”
R
iffl
e
2
-6”
Ru
n
2-6
”
Hig
h W
ater
Mar
k
"
Vel
oci
ty
Rif
fle –
0.0
1 c
fs,
Ru
n-
0.0
1 c
fs, p
ool
- 0
.01
cfs
Dam
Pre
sen
t:
Yes
X
N
o
Ch
ann
eliz
ed:
Yes
___
__
__
No
__
Can
op
y C
over
: O
pen
P
artl
y O
pen
P
artl
y S
had
ed
Sh
aded
SE
DIM
EN
T/S
UB
ST
RA
TE
:
Sed
imen
t O
do
rs:
No
rmal
S
ewag
e
Pet
role
um
C
hem
ical
A
nae
rob
ic
No
ne
Oth
er
Sed
imen
t O
ils:
A
bse
nt
Sli
gh
t M
od
erat
e P
rofu
se
Sed
imen
t D
epo
sits
: S
lud
ge
Saw
du
st
Pap
er F
iber
S
and
Rel
ict
Sh
ells
O
ther
Are
th
e u
nd
ersi
des
of
ston
es w
hic
h a
re n
ot
dee
ply
em
bed
ded
bla
ck?
Yes
N
o
Ino
rgan
ic S
ub
stra
te C
om
pon
ents
Org
anic
Su
bst
rate
Co
mp
on
ents
Su
bst
rate
Typ
e
Dia
met
er
Per
cen
t
Co
mp
osi
tio
n
in S
amp
lin
g A
rea
S
ub
stra
te T
yp
e
Ch
arac
teri
stic
s
Per
cen
t
Co
mp
osi
tio
n
in S
amp
lin
g A
rea
Bed
rock
Det
ritu
s S
tick
s, W
oo
d,
Co
arse
Pla
nt
Bo
uld
er
>2
56
-mm
(1
0 i
n.)
5
0
Mat
eria
ls (
CP
ON
)
Co
bble
6
4-2
56
-mm
(2
.5-1
0 i
n.)
2
5
Gra
vel
2
-64
-mm
(0
.1-2
.5 i
n.)
2
5
M
uck
-Mu
d
Bla
ck,
Ver
y F
ine
Org
anic
San
d
0.0
6-2
.00
-mm
(gri
tty)
(F
PO
N)
Sil
t .0
04
-.0
6-m
m
Cla
y
<.0
04
-mm
(sl
ick)
Mar
l G
rey,
Sh
ell
Fra
gm
ents
WA
TE
R Q
UA
LIT
Y
Tem
per
atu
re
1
6.5
C
D
isso
lved
Ox
yg
en
pH
8.7
4
Co
ndu
ctiv
ity
48
4
O
ther
Inst
rum
ent(
s) U
sed
Ho
rib
a U
-10
Str
eam
Typ
e:
Co
ld w
ater
W
arm
wat
er
Wat
er O
do
rs:
No
rmal
S
ewag
e
Pet
role
um
C
hem
ical
N
on
e O
ther
Wat
er S
urf
ace
Oil
s:
Sli
ck
Sh
een
Glo
be
Fle
cks
No
ne
Tu
rbid
ity:
Cle
ar
Sli
gh
tly T
urb
id
Tu
rbid
O
paq
ue
Wat
er C
olo
r
WE
AT
HE
R C
ON
DIT
ION
S S
un
ny H
igh
70
’s/
Lo
w 8
0’s
PH
OT
OG
RA
PH
NU
MB
ER
3
and
4
OB
SE
RV
AT
ION
S A
ND
/OR
SK
ET
CH
H
eav
y v
eget
atio
n g
row
th w
ith
in t
he
stre
am c
orr
ido
r. S
trea
m c
on
dit
ion
s co
nsi
sten
t w
ith
pre
vio
us
yea
rs c
on
dit
ion
s
PH
YS
ICA
L C
HA
RA
CT
ER
IZA
TIO
N/W
AT
ER
QU
AL
ITY
FIE
LD
DA
TA
SH
EE
T
ST
AT
ION
1
DA
TE
6/2
1/2
01
3
PH
YS
ICA
L C
HA
RA
CT
ER
IST
ICS
RIP
AR
IAN
ZO
NE
/IN
ST
RE
AM
FE
AT
UR
ES
Pre
do
min
ant
Su
rrou
nd
ing L
and
Use
:
Fo
rest
F
ield
/Pas
ture
A
gri
cult
ura
l R
esid
enti
al
Co
mm
erci
al
Indu
stri
al
Oth
er
Lo
cal
Wat
ersh
ed E
rosi
on
: N
on
e M
od
erat
e H
eav
y
Lo
cal
Wat
ersh
ed N
PS
Po
llu
tion
: N
o E
vid
ence
S
om
e P
ote
nti
al S
ou
rce
Ob
vio
us
So
urc
es
Est
imat
es S
trea
m W
idth
2
-15
fee
t
E
stim
ated
Str
eam
Dep
th:
20
-30
”
R
iffl
e
1-6
”
Ru
n
1-6
”
Hig
h W
ater
Mar
k
"
Vel
oci
ty
Rif
fle –
0.0
1 c
fs,
Ru
n –
0.0
1 c
fs,
Pool –
0.0
1 c
fs
D
am P
rese
nt:
Y
es
No
X
__
_
Ch
ann
eliz
ed:
Yes
__
_X
_
No _
_
Can
op
y C
over
: O
pen
P
artl
y O
pen
P
artl
y S
had
ed
Sh
aded
SE
DIM
EN
T/S
UB
ST
RA
TE
:
Sed
imen
t O
do
rs:
No
rmal
S
ewag
e
Pet
role
um
C
hem
ical
A
nae
rob
ic
No
ne
Oth
er
Sed
imen
t O
ils:
A
bse
nt
Sli
gh
t M
od
erat
e P
rofu
se
Sed
imen
t D
epo
sits
: S
lud
ge
Saw
du
st
Pap
er F
iber
S
and
Rel
ict
Sh
ells
O
ther
Are
th
e u
nd
ersi
des
of
ston
es w
hic
h a
re n
ot
dee
ply
em
bed
ded
bla
ck?
Yes
N
o
Ino
rgan
ic S
ub
stra
te C
om
pon
ents
Org
anic
Su
bst
rate
Co
mp
on
ents
Su
bst
rate
Typ
e
Dia
met
er
Per
cen
t
Co
mp
osi
tio
n
in S
amp
lin
g A
rea
S
ub
stra
te T
yp
e
Ch
arac
teri
stic
s
Per
cen
t
Co
mp
osi
tio
n
in S
amp
lin
g A
rea
Bed
rock
Det
ritu
s S
tick
s, W
oo
d,
Co
arse
Pla
nt
Bo
uld
er
>2
56
-mm
(1
0 i
n.)
5
0
Mat
eria
ls (
CP
ON
)
Co
bble
6
4-2
56
-mm
(2
.5-1
0 i
n.)
Gra
vel
2
-64
-mm
(0
.1-2
.5 i
n.)
5
0
M
uck
-Mu
d
Bla
ck,
Ver
y F
ine
Org
anic
San
d
0.0
6-2
.00
-mm
(gri
tty)
(F
PO
N)
Sil
t .0
04
-.0
6-m
m
Cla
y
<.0
04
-mm
(sl
ick)
Mar
l G
rey,
Sh
ell
Fra
gm
ents
WA
TE
R Q
UA
LIT
Y
Tem
per
atu
re 2
0 C
D
isso
lved
Ox
yg
en
8.8
8
pH
7
.96
C
on
du
ctiv
ity
29
4
O
ther
Inst
rum
ent(
s) U
sed
H
ori
ba
U-1
0
Str
eam
Typ
e:
Co
ld w
ater
W
arm
wat
er
Wat
er O
do
rs:
No
rmal
S
ewag
e
Pet
role
um
C
hem
ical
N
on
e O
ther
Wat
er S
urf
ace
Oil
s:
Sli
ck
Sh
een
Glo
be
Fle
cks
No
ne
Tu
rbid
ity:
Cle
ar
Sli
gh
tly T
urb
id
Tu
rbid
O
paq
ue
Wat
er C
olo
r
WE
AT
HE
R C
ON
DIT
ION
S S
un
ny,
Hig
h 7
0’s
/Lo
w 8
0’s
PH
OT
OG
RA
PH
NU
MB
ER
1
an
d 2
OB
SE
RV
AT
ION
S A
ND
/OR
SK
ET
CH
Hea
vy v
eget
atio
n a
dja
cen
t to
and
wit
hin
th
e st
ream
co
rrid
or
PH
YS
ICA
L C
HA
RA
CT
ER
IZA
TIO
N/W
AT
ER
QU
AL
ITY
FIE
LD
DA
TA
SH
EE
T
ST
AT
ION
4
DA
TE
6/2
1/2
013
PH
YS
ICA
L C
HA
RA
CT
ER
IST
ICS
RIP
AR
IAN
ZO
NE
/IN
ST
RE
AM
FE
AT
UR
ES
Pre
do
min
ant
Su
rrou
nd
ing L
and
Use
:
Fo
rest
F
ield
/Pas
ture
A
gri
cult
ura
l R
esid
enti
al
Co
mm
erci
al
Indu
stri
al
Oth
er
Lo
cal
Wat
ersh
ed E
rosi
on
: N
on
e M
od
erat
e H
eav
y
Lo
cal
Wat
ersh
ed N
PS
Po
llu
tion
: N
o E
vid
ence
S
om
e P
ote
nti
al S
ou
rce
Ob
vio
us
So
urc
es
Est
imat
es S
trea
m W
idth
2
-10
fee
t
Est
imat
ed S
trea
m D
epth
: 1
2-2
4”
R
iffl
e
1
-3”
Ru
n
1-5
”
Hig
h W
ater
Mar
k
"
Vel
oci
ty
Rif
fle –
0.0
1 c
fs,
Ru
n –
0.0
1 c
fs,
Pool –
0.0
1 c
fs
D
am P
rese
nt:
Y
es
No
X
Ch
ann
eliz
ed:Y
es _
__
__
__
No
__
Can
op
y C
over
: O
pen
P
artl
y O
pen
P
artl
y S
had
ed
Sh
aded
SE
DIM
EN
T/S
UB
ST
RA
TE
:
Sed
imen
t O
do
rs:
No
rmal
S
ewag
e
Pet
role
um
C
hem
ical
A
nae
rob
ic
No
ne
Oth
er
Sed
imen
t O
ils:
A
bse
nt
Sli
gh
t M
od
erat
e P
rofu
se
Sed
imen
t D
epo
sits
: S
lud
ge
Saw
du
st
Pap
er F
iber
S
and
Rel
ict
Sh
ells
O
ther
Are
th
e u
nd
ersi
des
of
ston
es w
hic
h a
re n
ot
dee
ply
em
bed
ded
bla
ck?
Yes
N
o
Ino
rgan
ic S
ub
stra
te C
om
pon
ents
Org
anic
Su
bst
rate
Co
mp
on
ents
Su
bst
rate
Typ
e
Dia
met
er
Per
cen
t
Co
mp
osi
tio
n
in S
amp
lin
g A
rea
S
ub
stra
te T
yp
e
Ch
arac
teri
stic
s
Per
cen
t
Co
mp
osi
tio
n
in S
amp
lin
g A
rea
Bed
rock
Det
ritu
s S
tick
s, W
oo
d,
Co
arse
Pla
nt
Bo
uld
er
>2
56
-mm
(1
0 i
n.)
Mat
eria
ls (
CP
ON
)
Co
bble
6
4-2
56
-mm
(2
.5-1
0 i
n.)
5
0
Gra
vel
2
-64
-mm
(0
.1-2
.5 i
n.)
5
0
M
uck
-Mu
d
Bla
ck,
Ver
y F
ine
Org
anic
San
d
0.0
6-2
.00
-mm
(gri
tty)
(F
PO
N)
Sil
t .0
04
-.0
6-m
m
Cla
y
<.0
04
-mm
(sl
ick)
Mar
l G
rey,
Sh
ell
Fra
gm
ents
WA
TE
R Q
UA
LIT
Y
Tem
per
atu
re
20
.6 C
D
isso
lved
Oxygen
_9
.23_
__
__
pH
8
.11
C
on
du
ctiv
ity
29
2
Oth
er
Inst
rum
ent(
s) U
sed
H
ori
ba
U-1
0
Str
eam
Typ
e:
Co
ld w
ater
W
arm
wat
er
Wat
er O
do
rs:
No
rmal
S
ewag
e
Pet
role
um
C
hem
ical
N
on
e O
ther
Wat
er S
urf
ace
Oil
s:
Sli
ck
Sh
een
Glo
be
Fle
cks
No
ne
Tu
rbid
ity:
Cle
ar
Sli
gh
tly T
urb
id
Tu
rbid
O
paq
ue
Wat
er C
olo
r
WE
AT
HE
R C
ON
DIT
ION
S S
un
ny,
Hig
h 7
0’s
/ L
ow
80
’s
PH
OT
OG
RA
PH
NU
MB
ER
5
and
6
OB
SE
RV
AT
ION
S A
ND
/OR
SK
ET
CH
Str
eam
co
nd
itio
ns
con
sist
ent
wit
h p
revio
us
yea
r’s
stu
die
s
APPENDIX BPhotograph Log
APPE
ND
IX B
Photo 1: Station 1 facing downstream from the Levengood Road Bridge
Photo 2: Station 1 facing upstream towards the Levengood Road Bridge
Photo 3: Station 0 facing upstream
Photo 4: Station 0 facing downstream
Photo 5: Station 4 facing downstream
Photo 6: Station 4 facing upstream
APPENDIX CStation 0
Macroinvertebrate Sample Results
APPE
ND
IX C
AP
PE
ND
IX C
MA
CR
OIN
VE
RT
EB
RA
TE
S C
OL
LE
CT
ED
YE
AR
LY
AT
ST
AT
ION
0 F
RO
M G
OO
SE
RU
N I
N T
HE
VIC
INIT
Y O
F P
OT
TS
TO
WN
LA
ND
FIL
L,
MO
NT
GO
ME
RY
CO
UN
TY
, P
EN
NS
YL
VA
NIA
Ma
cro
inve
rte
bra
te T
axa
19
96
6/2
7
19
97
8/7
19
98
8/1
3
19
99
N/A
20
00
6/2
2
20
01
5/2
4
20
02
6/1
9
20
03
5/1
5
20
04
7/1
4
20
05
6/2
20
06
5/2
3
20
07
5/1
6
20
08
5/3
0
20
09
5/2
20
10
5/2
5
20
11
6/2
7
20
12
6/1
5
20
13
6/2
1
Annelid
a
O
ligo
ch
ae
ta28
19
78
423
150
7
L
um
bri
cid
a
L
um
bri
cid
ae
14
51
721
464
5
Lu
mb
ricu
lida
e2
M
egadri
lli27
11
2
Na
idid
ae
2
Tu
bific
ina
e2
2
T
ubific
ida
E
nchytr
aeid
ae
11
T
ubific
idae
19
23
11
R
hyn
ch
ob
de
llid
a
G
lossip
honiid
ae
1
G
loio
bdella
1
H
elo
bdella
e2
10
10
Art
hro
po
da
C
rusta
ce
a
A
mphip
oda
G
am
ma
ridae
C
ran
go
nyx
860
22
434
424
110
416
160
16
26
G
am
maru
s16
929
157
123
T
alit
ridae
D
ecopoda
C
am
bari
dae
C
am
baru
s3
43
84
13
In
se
cta
C
ole
op
tera
C
urc
ulio
nid
ae
1
D
ytiscid
ae
Agabus
13
37
121
10
111
16
1
Dytiscus
417
Hydro
poru
s8
12
110
35
37
15
19
34
28
160
33
1
E
lmid
ae
Dubir
aphia
21
Optioserv
us
12
3
Macro
nychus
1
Ste
nelm
is23
119
12
24
13
H
alip
lidae
Ple
todyte
s2
61
21
2
H
ydro
phili
dae
Bero
sus
13
Enochru
s1
Hydro
biu
s1
23
Hydro
philu
s1
AP
PE
ND
IX C
MA
CR
OIN
VE
RT
EB
RA
TE
S C
OL
LE
CT
ED
YE
AR
LY
AT
ST
AT
ION
0 F
RO
M G
OO
SE
RU
N I
N T
HE
VIC
INIT
Y O
F P
OT
TS
TO
WN
LA
ND
FIL
L,
MO
NT
GO
ME
RY
CO
UN
TY
, P
EN
NS
YL
VA
NIA
Ma
cro
inve
rte
bra
te T
axa
19
96
6/2
7
19
97
8/7
19
98
8/1
3
19
99
N/A
20
00
6/2
2
20
01
5/2
4
20
02
6/1
9
20
03
5/1
5
20
04
7/1
4
20
05
6/2
20
06
5/2
3
20
07
5/1
6
20
08
5/3
0
20
09
5/2
20
10
5/2
5
20
11
6/2
7
20
12
6/1
5
20
13
6/2
1
Para
cym
us
1
P
sephenid
ae
Psephenus
51
83
214
46
38
C
olle
mb
ola
1
E
nto
mobry
idae
D
ipte
ra
C
era
topogonid
ae
211
Atr
ichopogon
2
Culic
oid
es
1
Pro
bezz
ia2
Bezz
ialP
alp
om
yia
10
6
C
hir
onom
idae
1333
167
201
34
2335
871
369
22
360
98
243
736
424
324
228
78
401
C
ulic
idae
Cule
x7
E
phydri
dae
3
P
sychodid
ae
Pe
rico
ma
5
S
imulii
dae
11
Sim
uliu
m2
S
tratiom
yid
ae
Str
atio
mys
1
T
ipulid
ae
1
Anto
cha
12
3
Poly
mera
1
Tip
ula
32
31
61
E
ph
em
ero
pte
ra
B
aetidae
Baetis
72
389
19
48
22
Ce
ntr
op
tilu
m1
Calli
baetis
23
1
C
aenid
ae
Caenis
15
18
16
28
22
32
E
phem
ere
llidae
1
Eury
lophella
61
12
74
811
H
epta
geniid
ae
Ste
nacro
n1
12
619
213
4
Lepto
phle
biid
ae
Le
pto
ph
leb
ia1
14
166
Pa
rale
pto
ph
leb
ia2
32
42
Ha
bro
ph
leb
oid
es
7
S
iphlo
nuri
dae
Sip
hlo
nuru
s3
1
O
ligoneuri
idae
Isonychia
3
H
em
ipte
ra6
AP
PE
ND
IX C
MA
CR
OIN
VE
RT
EB
RA
TE
S C
OL
LE
CT
ED
YE
AR
LY
AT
ST
AT
ION
0 F
RO
M G
OO
SE
RU
N I
N T
HE
VIC
INIT
Y O
F P
OT
TS
TO
WN
LA
ND
FIL
L,
MO
NT
GO
ME
RY
CO
UN
TY
, P
EN
NS
YL
VA
NIA
Ma
cro
inve
rte
bra
te T
axa
19
96
6/2
7
19
97
8/7
19
98
8/1
3
19
99
N/A
20
00
6/2
2
20
01
5/2
4
20
02
6/1
9
20
03
5/1
5
20
04
7/1
4
20
05
6/2
20
06
5/2
3
20
07
5/1
6
20
08
5/3
0
20
09
5/2
20
10
5/2
5
20
11
6/2
7
20
12
6/1
5
20
13
6/2
1
B
elo
sto
mid
ae
Belo
sto
ma
1
C
ori
xid
ae
Sig
ara
82
1
Hespero
cori
xa
16
127
1
Tri
chocori
xa
27
G
err
idae
Aquari
us
1
Gerr
is5
41
13
Lim
no
po
rus
1
Tre
pobate
s1
8
V
elii
dae
Mic
rovelia
11
1
L
epid
opte
ra
N
octu
idae
1
M
egalo
pte
ra
S
ialid
ae
Sia
lis4
72
1
O
do
na
ta
Aeschnid
ae
Aeschna
12
2
Bo
ye
nia
11
C
oenagri
onid
ae
Ischnura
2
Calo
pte
ryx
11
C
ord
ulii
dae
N
euro
cord
ulia
1
G
om
phid
ae
Sty
logom
phus
27
18
69
11
3
Lanth
us
43
P
leco
pte
ra
N
em
ouri
dae
A
mphin
em
ura
145
1
P
erl
idae
A
cro
neuri
a15
1
Eccoptu
ra1
Perl
esta
12
22
11
1
P
erl
odid
ae
Is
operl
a52
2
T
rico
pte
ra
H
ydro
psychid
ae
2
Cera
topsych
e28
Cheum
ato
psych
e32
456
44
13
Hydro
psych
e2
52
6
Dip
lecto
na
41
AP
PE
ND
IX C
MA
CR
OIN
VE
RT
EB
RA
TE
S C
OL
LE
CT
ED
YE
AR
LY
AT
ST
AT
ION
0 F
RO
M G
OO
SE
RU
N I
N T
HE
VIC
INIT
Y O
F P
OT
TS
TO
WN
LA
ND
FIL
L,
MO
NT
GO
ME
RY
CO
UN
TY
, P
EN
NS
YL
VA
NIA
Ma
cro
inve
rte
bra
te T
axa
19
96
6/2
7
19
97
8/7
19
98
8/1
3
19
99
N/A
20
00
6/2
2
20
01
5/2
4
20
02
6/1
9
20
03
5/1
5
20
04
7/1
4
20
05
6/2
20
06
5/2
3
20
07
5/1
6
20
08
5/3
0
20
09
5/2
20
10
5/2
5
20
11
6/2
7
20
12
6/1
5
20
13
6/2
1
Hyd
rop
tilid
ae
Hyd
rop
tila
21
Le
pto
ce
rid
ae
Mysta
cid
es
41
1
Lim
nephili
dae
1
P
hilo
poto
mid
ae
Chim
arr
a1
11
P
oly
centr
opodid
ae
Poly
centr
opus
11
Z
yg
op
tera
Lestidae
Leste
s1
Mo
llusca
G
astr
op
od
a
A
ncylid
ae
21
L
ym
naeid
ae
F
ossa
ria
16
P
hysid
ae
264
226
42
P
hysa
/Ph
yse
lla2
715
134
70
29
21
4
P
lan
orb
ida
e1
1
B
iva
lvia
Ve
ne
roid
a
S
ph
ae
riid
ae
6
P
isid
ium
21
21
61
Pla
tyh
elm
inth
es
T
urb
ella
ria
2
Tricla
did
a
P
lan
ariid
ae
7
Dugesia
60
371
3
To
tal
Sp
ec
ime
ns
1508
772
296
0141
2618
1737
1420
826
400
216
785
1022
1282
731
255
106
442
To
tal
Ta
xa
22
27
10
08
23
16
23
18
10
17
25
25
26
30
11
16
15
EP
T T
ax
a3
33
00
72
87
34
84
911
32
4
EP
T/C
hir
on
om
ida
e R
ati
o0
.03
0.2
40
.10
00
.00
60
.11
81
.09
26
.70
.04
17
0.2
86
0.1
44
0.0
62
50
.16
50
90
.16
97
50
.01
75
43
90
.02
60
.02
24
APPENDIX DTables
1 - Water Quality Results for Stations 1 and 4 (1988-2012)2 - Pollution Tolerance Indices3 - Station 1 Sample Results4 - Station 4 Sample Results
APPE
ND
IX D
TABLE 1Water Quality Results
for Stations 1 and 4(1988-2012)
Ta
ble
I
Wa
ter
Qu
ali
ty R
es
ult
s f
or
Sta
tio
ns
1 a
nd
4 (
19
88
- 2
01
3)
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Me
dia
n
Sta
tio
n 1
Te
mp
. (o
C)
21
19
20
20
20.5
22.5
20
21
16
19
25
NA
23
13.6
20.6
314.7
19.6
21.1
12.8
22.4
619.6
617.4
20.2
19
22.3
20
20
Dis
so
lve
d O
27.9
9.2
8.2
7.7
8.6
10.6
9.4
10
8.5
6.7
8.3
11.7
9.9
48.7
312.0
58.5
59.9
39.1
79.5
79.3
48.7
59.9
9.8
9.5
8.8
89.2
7
Spec. C
ond.
(um
ho
s/c
m @
K2
5)
pH
(sta
nd. units)
7.5
7.8
7.3
7.2
7.6
7.5
7.2
7.3
7.2
6.7
7.1
5.4
7.7
87.2
7.1
7.4
96.9
39.4
27.9
7.3
6.9
87.0
57.9
6.4
17.9
67.2
5
Str
ea
m V
elo
city (
ft/s
ec)
0.0
42.4
50.0
60.0
70.0
10.0
80.0
20.0
10.1
30.0
10.0
10.2
50.2
30.2
23
0.2
90.8
20.0
10.0
10.0
13.0
20.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
3
Sta
tio
n 4
Te
mp
. (o
C)
17.5
19
19
22.5
25
28.5
26.5
21
22
26
24
NA
23
15.8
519.5
313.5
19.3
18.1
11.8
20.6
18.5
20.0
321.5
23.1
22.3
20.6
20.8
Dis
so
lve
d O
29.6
9.4
10.9
6.9
7.6
15
12.3
10.5
12.4
6.6
5.9
12
10.4
87.1
511.0
38.5
58.9
29.7
19.3
29.3
79.3
9.3
9.2
9.3
9.2
39.3
45
Spec. C
ond.
(um
ho
s/c
m @
K2
5)
pH
(sta
nd. units)
7.4
7.5
7.5
7.4
7.6
8.6
7.5
7.8
7.5
6.6
76.8
7.5
47.3
27.6
77.5
17.1
98.1
27.4
17.3
7.0
76.9
77.3
7.0
48.1
17.4
05
Str
ea
m V
elo
city (
ft/s
ec)
0.0
53.5
0.1
20.2
90.0
40.1
30.0
30.0
30.2
60.0
10.0
10.8
90.4
0.7
63
0.2
31.3
50.0
10.0
10.0
12.1
70.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
45
372.5
192
230
0.5
7263
266
248
233.5
317.7
262.7
311
383
362
375
341
208
170
270
319
295
319
182
353
0.5
424
392
380
540
721
287
211
209
390
314
340
358
162.2
303.1
239.1
266
221.3
5196.0
3238.1
5
267.2
3272.8
247.2
309.6
247.6
201.3
305.2
294
292
NA
- N
o s
am
ple
s w
ere
co
llecte
d in 1
99
9 b
eca
use
of
dro
ugh
t co
nd
itio
ns. S
ub
mitte
d 1
1-y
ea
r su
mm
ary
re
po
rt to
PA
DE
P.
TABLE 2Pollution Tolerance Indices
TABLE 2
ALPHABETIC LIST, POLLUTION TOLERANCE INDICES (LENAT 1993 AND KLEMM 1990), AND HILSENHOFF
BIOTIC INDICES (HILSENHOFF 1988 AND BODE 1988) FOR ALL MACROINVERTEBRATE TAXA
COLLECTED IN GOOSE RUN DURING 1988 THROUGH 2013.
Scientific Name Common Name
Pollution
Tolerance Index
Hilsenhoff
Biotic Index
Acroneuria stonefly 0.0 - 2.2 0
Aeshna dragonfly 4 5
Agabus predaceous diving beetle - 5
Agnetina stonefly 0 2
Americanus mayfly 7.6 -
Amphinemura stonefly 3.4 3
Anacaena water scavenger beetle - -
Ancylidae snail 7
Anopheles mosquito 9.1 -
Antocha crane fly 4.6 3
Aquarius water strider NA
Argia blue damselfly 8.7 6
Atherix snipe fly 2.1 2
Atrichopogon biting midge 6.8 2
Attaneuria stonefly 3
Baetis mayfly 1.8-7.2 6
Berosus water scavenger beetle 8.6 5
Bezzia true fly 6
Boyeria dragonfly 6.3 2
Caenis square-gill mayfly 7.6 7
Callibaetis mayfly 9.3 9
Cambarus crayfish 8.1 6
Centroptilum mayfly 2 0
Ceratopogonidae biting midge 6 6
Ceratopsyche caddisfly 4 5
Chaoboridae phantom midge 8.5 8
Chaoborus phantom midge 8
Cheumatopsyche net-spinning caddisfly 6.6 6
Chimarra caddisfly 2.8 4
Chironomidae midge 6.0 – 8.0 6
Chrysops deer fly 7.3 7
Cloeon mayfly 7.4 4
Coenagrionidae damselfly 9 8
Collembola springtail 9
Copelatus diving beetle 5 -
Crangonyx scud 8 6
Culex mosquito
Culicidae mosquito - -
Derallus water scavenger beetle 4 -
Dicronota crane fly 0 3
Diptera true flies NA
Dolichopodidae long-legged fly 9.7 4
Drunella mayfly 0.0-1.3 1
Dubiraphia riffle beetle 6.4 6
Dugesia flat worm 7.5 7
Dytiscidae predaceous diving beetle 5
Eccoptura stonefly 2
TABLE 2
ALPHABETIC LIST, POLLUTION TOLERANCE INDICES (LENAT 1993 AND KLEMM 1990), AND HILSENHOFF
BIOTIC INDICES (HILSENHOFF 1988 AND BODE 1988) FOR ALL MACROINVERTEBRATE TAXA
COLLECTED IN GOOSE RUN DURING 1988 THROUGH 2013.
Scientific Name Common Name
Pollution
Tolerance Index
Hilsenhoff
Biotic Index
Empididae true fly 6
Enallagma damselfly 9 8
Enochrus water scavenger beetle 8.5 5
Ephemerella mayfly 1
Ephydridae mayfly 6
Erpobdella red leech 10 8
Eurylophella mayfly 0.3-5.1 4
Ferrissia limpet snail 6.9 7
Fossaria pond snail 6 7
Gammarus scud 6.9 6
Gerridae water strider 9
Gerris water strider - -
Glossosoma caddisfly 0
G omphidae dragonfly 4
Gomphus dragonfly 6.2 5
Haeterina damselfly 6.2 -
Haliplidae water beetle 5
Helichus riffle beetle 5.4 5
Helisoma planorbid snail 7
Helochares water scavenger beetle 4 5
Helophorus water scavenger beetle 7.9 5
Hemerodromia dance fly 8.1 6
Heptageniidae flathead mayfly 3
Hesperocorixa true bug NA
Hexagenia burrowing mayfly 4.7 6
Hirudinea leech 6 8
Hyalella scud (digger amphipod) 7.9 8
Hydatophylax caddisfly 2.3 2
Hydrobius water scavenger beetle - 5
Hydrophilidae water scavenger beetle - 5
Hydrophilus water scavenger beetle 5 5
Hydroporus predaceous diving beetle 8.9 5
Hydropsyche net-spinning caddisfly 1.8-8.1 5
Hydroptila micro-caddisfly 6.2 6
Ischnura damselfly 9.4 9
Isonychia mayfly 3.8 3
Isoperla stonefly 2
Laccophilus water scavenger beetle 10 5
Lanthus dragonfly 2.7 5
Lepidostoma caddisfly 1 1
Leptophlebia mayfly 4
Lestes damselfly 6 9
Libellulidae dragonfly 9 9
Limnephilidae caddisfly 4
Limnophora house fly - 6
Lumbricidae semi aquatic earthworm - 8
Lumbriculidae aquatic earthworm 7.3 8
TABLE 2
ALPHABETIC LIST, POLLUTION TOLERANCE INDICES (LENAT 1993 AND KLEMM 1990), AND HILSENHOFF
BIOTIC INDICES (HILSENHOFF 1988 AND BODE 1988) FOR ALL MACROINVERTEBRATE TAXA
COLLECTED IN GOOSE RUN DURING 1988 THROUGH 2013.
Scientific Name Common Name
Pollution
Tolerance Index
Hilsenhoff
Biotic Index
Megadrili earthworm 8 -
Metrobates water strider - 9
Microvelia broad-shouldered water strider - 9
Mooreobdella leech 8 0
Mystacides caddisfly - 4
Naididae naiad worm 8 -
Nematoda roundworm 9
Neoperla stonefly 1.6 3
Neureclipsis caddisfly 4.4 7
Nigronia alderfly 5.5 2
Notonecta back swimmer - -
Oecetis caddisfly 5.7 8
Oligochaeta aquatic worm 10
Optioservus riffle beetle 2.7 4
Oulimnius riffle beetle 5.4 5
Palpomyia true fly NA
Paraleptophlebia mayfly 1
Parcymus water scavenger beetle - -
Pericoma true fly 4
Perlesta stonefly 4.9 4
Physa pouch snail 9.1 8
Physidae snail 8 8
Pisidium pill clam 6.8 8
Planaridae flatworm 9
Planorbella snail (ram’s horn) 6.5 -
Planorbidae planorbid snail 6
Pletodytes crawling water beetle 8.5 5
Polycentropus caddisfly 3.5 6
Prostoma proboscis worm 6 -
Prostomosa flatworm NA
Psephenidae water penny 4
Psephenus water penny 2.5 4
Psychodidae moth fly 9.9 10
Rhagovelia broad shouldered water strider 6 9
Rheumatobates water strider - -
Serratella mayfly 0.0-2.7 2
Sialis alderfly 7.5 6
Sigara water boatmen - 8
Simuliidae black fly 6 6
Simulium black fly 4.4 6
Stenacron mayfly 1.7-7.1 4
Stenelmis riffle beetle 5.4 5
Stenonema mayfly 2.1-5.8 3
Stratiomyiidae soldierfly - 8
Stratiomys soldierfly 8 -
Stygobromis scud - -
Stylogomphus dragonfly 4.8 -
TABLE 2
ALPHABETIC LIST, POLLUTION TOLERANCE INDICES (LENAT 1993 AND KLEMM 1990), AND HILSENHOFF
BIOTIC INDICES (HILSENHOFF 1988 AND BODE 1988) FOR ALL MACROINVERTEBRATE TAXA
COLLECTED IN GOOSE RUN DURING 1988 THROUGH 2013.
Scientific Name Common Name
Pollution
Tolerance Index
Hilsenhoff
Biotic Index
Tabanidae horse fly - 6
Tipula crane fly 7.7 4
Tipulidae crane fly 4
Trepobates water strider - -
Trichocorixa water boatmen 8 8
Tricorythodes mayfly 5.4 4
Tropisternus water scavenger beetle 9.8 5
Tubificidae tube worm 8.0-10.0 10
Turbellaria flat worm 6 7
TABLE 3Station 1 Sample Results
TA
BL
E 3
MA
CR
OIN
VE
RT
EB
RA
TE
S C
OL
LE
CT
ED
YE
AR
LY
AT
ST
AT
ION
1 F
RO
M G
OO
SE
RU
N I
N T
HE
VIC
INIT
Y O
F P
OT
TS
TO
WN
LA
ND
FIL
L,
MO
NT
GO
ME
RY
CO
UN
TY
, P
EN
NS
YL
VA
NIA
19
88
5/2
3
19
89
7/1
7
19
90
7/1
0
19
91
7/8
19
92
7/2
0
19
93
7/2
7
19
94
7/1
3
19
95
7/1
0
19
96
6/2
7
19
97
8/7
19
98
8/1
3
19
99
N/A
20
00
6/2
2
20
01
5/2
4
20
02
6/1
9
20
03
5/1
5
20
04
7/1
4
20
05
6/2
20
06
5/2
3
20
07
5/1
6
20
08
5/3
0
20
09
5/2
20
10
5/2
5
20
11
6/2
7
20
12
6/1
5
20
13
6/2
1
An
ne
lida
3
O
ligo
ch
ae
ta2
6/1
07
1/1
04
73
/10
63
/10
L
um
bri
cid
a
L
um
bri
cid
ae
13
13
15
14
43
13
21
2
L
um
bri
cu
lida
L
um
bri
cu
lida
e1
48
1
T
ub
ific
ida
T
ub
ific
ida
e
19
12
3
N
aid
ida
e2
1
N
em
ato
da
1
M
eg
ad
rilli
16
5
O
ligo
ch
ae
ta
R
hyn
ch
ob
de
llid
a
G
lossip
ho
niid
ae
H
elo
bd
ella
e1
6
H
iru
din
ea
1/8
2/8
G
lossip
ho
niid
ae
H
elo
bd
ella
e1
G
loio
bd
ella
1
Art
hro
po
da
C
rusta
ce
a
D
eca
po
da
C
am
ba
rid
ae
C
am
ba
rus
22
41
3/6
3/6
4/6
47
32
12
A
mp
hip
od
a
G
am
ma
rid
ae
C
ran
go
nyx
76
14
23
32
83
3/6
64
24
81
06
76
1
S
tyg
ob
rom
us
1
G
am
ma
rus
73
19
10
/63
/67
9/6
H
ya
lelli
da
e
H
ya
lella
43
12
1
In
se
cta
C
ole
op
tera
D
ryo
pid
ae
He
lich
us
11
D
ytiscid
ae
31
/5
Ag
ab
us
33
23
12
12
73
/54
/57
7/5
35
10
31
Co
pe
latu
s1
Dytiscu
s1
42
6
Hyd
rop
oru
s8
13
34
17
15
66
26
10
42
87
/52
/58
5/5
2/5
77
36
29
32
14
11
7
La
cco
ph
ilus
91
1
Ne
op
oru
s1
1
E
lmid
ae
Du
bir
ap
hia
43
38
43
71
68
15
21
/65
/61
81
Ma
cro
nych
us
1
Ou
limn
ius
1/5
Op
tio
se
rvu
s3
33
94
59
91
43
50
21
12
/51
21
Ste
ne
lmis
38
36
74
84
44
75
15
06
63
71
52
8/5
2/5
9/5
21
10
81
01
59
H
alip
lida
e6
/5
Ple
tod
yte
s1
31
33
19
19
22
13
12
5/5
6/5
5/5
35
62
11
42
11
4
H
yd
rop
hili
da
e1
15
1
An
aca
en
a2
Be
rosu
s
21
11
De
rallu
s3
En
och
rus
21
41
2
He
loch
are
s1
11
Hyd
rob
ius
11
43
52
1/5
21
Pa
racym
us
24
62
41
11
Tro
pis
tern
us
22
47
1
H
elo
ph
ori
da
e
TA
BL
E 3
MA
CR
OIN
VE
RT
EB
RA
TE
S C
OL
LE
CT
ED
YE
AR
LY
AT
ST
AT
ION
1 F
RO
M G
OO
SE
RU
N I
N T
HE
VIC
INIT
Y O
F P
OT
TS
TO
WN
LA
ND
FIL
L,
MO
NT
GO
ME
RY
CO
UN
TY
, P
EN
NS
YL
VA
NIA
19
88
5/2
3
19
89
7/1
7
19
90
7/1
0
19
91
7/8
19
92
7/2
0
19
93
7/2
7
19
94
7/1
3
19
95
7/1
0
19
96
6/2
7
19
97
8/7
19
98
8/1
3
19
99
N/A
20
00
6/2
2
20
01
5/2
4
20
02
6/1
9
20
03
5/1
5
20
04
7/1
4
20
05
6/2
20
06
5/2
3
20
07
5/1
6
20
08
5/3
0
20
09
5/2
20
10
5/2
5
20
11
6/2
7
20
12
6/1
5
20
13
6/2
1
He
lop
ho
rus
1
P
se
ph
en
ida
e
Pse
ph
en
us
13
11
47
93
20
74
02
25
10
4/4
6/4
7/4
21
01
22
26
11
2
C
olle
mb
ola
E
nto
mo
bry
ida
e1
/9
D
ipte
ra
C
era
top
og
on
ida
e1
1/6
30
/6
Atr
ich
op
og
on
11
11
Be
zzia
lPa
lpo
myia
21
01
31
33
75
1
Pro
be
zzia
1
C
ha
ob
ori
da
e
Ch
ao
bo
rus
1/8
C
hir
on
om
ida
e1
48
27
59
56
28
49
63
61
47
92
86
15
96
36
47
55
58
44
61
/63
16
/64
56
6/6
5/6
13
00
90
57
81
28
82
62
47
14
36
38
01
11
C
ulic
ida
e2
An
op
he
les
41
25
Cu
lex
4/N
A
D
olic
ho
po
did
ae
1
E
mp
idid
ae
He
me
rod
rom
ia2
35
19
16
/6
E
ph
yd
rid
ae
M
uscid
ae
Lim
no
ph
ora
1
P
sych
od
ida
e1
Pe
rico
ma
1
S
cio
myzid
ae
Se
pe
do
n1
S
imu
liid
ae
8/6
6/6
Sim
uliu
m1
31
21
22
/6
S
tra
tio
myid
ae
11
/8
T
ab
an
ida
e1
T
ipu
lida
e
An
toch
a2
61
Dic
ran
ota
2
Tip
ula
81
12
71
54
1/4
2/4
12
21
2
E
ph
em
ero
pte
ra
B
ae
tid
ae
Ba
etis
87
51
26
25
30
54
31
01
28
/69
/64
1/6
3/6
1
Ca
llib
ae
tis
56
31
13
/9
Clo
eo
n1
51
Pro
clo
eo
n1
Ce
ntr
op
tilu
m1
69
22
C
ae
nid
ae
Ca
en
is4
21
41
00
22
62
19
46
20
/72
/78
6/7
1/7
14
64
32
64
19
25
7
E
ph
em
ere
llid
ae
Ep
he
me
rella
29
/16
/11
7
Eu
rylo
ph
ella
32
17
/41
/42
33
2
Se
rra
tella
36
H
ep
tag
en
iida
e
Ste
na
cro
n2
37
43
21
51
01
/31
62
04
36
10
43
13
48
Ste
no
ne
ma
24
5/3
L
ep
top
hyp
hid
ae
1
L
ep
top
hle
biid
ae
Le
pto
ph
leb
ia1
1/4
1/4
10
25
/4
Pa
rale
pto
ph
leb
ia4
16
18
11
Ha
bro
ph
leb
oid
es
1
Sip
hlo
nu
rid
ae
Sip
hlo
nu
rus
11
O
ligo
ne
uri
ida
e
Iso
nych
ia1
42
/NA
T
rico
ryth
ida
e
TA
BL
E 3
MA
CR
OIN
VE
RT
EB
RA
TE
S C
OL
LE
CT
ED
YE
AR
LY
AT
ST
AT
ION
1 F
RO
M G
OO
SE
RU
N I
N T
HE
VIC
INIT
Y O
F P
OT
TS
TO
WN
LA
ND
FIL
L,
MO
NT
GO
ME
RY
CO
UN
TY
, P
EN
NS
YL
VA
NIA
19
88
5/2
3
19
89
7/1
7
19
90
7/1
0
19
91
7/8
19
92
7/2
0
19
93
7/2
7
19
94
7/1
3
19
95
7/1
0
19
96
6/2
7
19
97
8/7
19
98
8/1
3
19
99
N/A
20
00
6/2
2
20
01
5/2
4
20
02
6/1
9
20
03
5/1
5
20
04
7/1
4
20
05
6/2
20
06
5/2
3
20
07
5/1
6
20
08
5/3
0
20
09
5/2
20
10
5/2
5
20
11
6/2
7
20
12
6/1
5
20
13
6/2
1
Tri
co
ryth
od
es
38
26
31
62
15
68
30
35
2
H
em
ipte
ra
C
ori
xid
ae
Sig
ara
10
29
21
81
13
57
76
12
01
He
sp
ero
co
rixa
10
24
/NA
17
/NA
9/N
A
Tri
ch
oco
rixa
5
G
err
ida
e2
/9
Aq
ua
riu
s1
/NA
36
7
Ge
rris
63
72
52
33
13
Lim
no
po
rou
s3
1
Me
tro
ba
tes
42
Tre
po
ba
tes
18
1
V
elii
da
e
Mic
rove
lia1
22
51
53
11
51
1
Rh
ag
ove
lia1
1
M
eg
alo
pte
ra
S
ialid
ae
Sia
lis1
93
95
13
11
47
42
43
21
O
do
na
ta
A
esh
nid
ae
Ae
sh
na
12
11
10
5
Bo
ye
ria
2/2
1
C
oe
na
gri
on
ida
e1
Arg
ia1
21
21
/62
1
En
alla
gm
a1
G
om
ph
ida
e
Go
mp
hu
s1
21
1/5
1
La
nth
us
14
24
35
4/4
3
Sty
log
om
ph
us
11
95
18
21
12
81
92
26
L
estid
ae
Le
ste
s2
L
ibe
llulid
ae
1
C
alo
pte
ryg
ida
e
Ca
lop
tery
x2
1
P
leco
pte
ra2
/3
N
em
ou
rid
ae
Am
ph
ine
mu
ra1
2/3
55
/3
P
erl
ida
e
Acro
ne
uri
a5
/07
0/0
Ag
ne
tin
a1
Att
an
eu
ria
11
/3
Ecco
ptu
ra
Ne
op
eri
a2
1
Pe
rle
sta
41
/31
04
14
20
11
17
P
erl
od
ida
e
Iso
pe
rla
68
/NA
11
T
rico
pte
ra
H
yd
rop
sych
ida
e1
/55
/5
Ch
eu
ma
top
sych
e1
19
17
91
14
14
06
73
70
6/6
17
3/6
11
13
Ce
rato
psych
e8
/5
Hyd
rop
sych
e1
71
12
51
15
11
94
21
4/5
11
/53
H
yd
rop
tilid
ae
Hyd
rop
tila
25
28
85
0/6
1/6
10
9/6
1
L
ep
toce
rid
ae
Mysta
cid
es
10
17
13
7
Oe
ce
tis
1
L
imn
ep
hili
da
e2
/42
/4
P
hilo
pto
mid
ae
Ch
ima
rra
33
58
13
06
11
41
01
/49
/41
P
oly
ce
ntr
op
od
ida
e
TA
BL
E 3
MA
CR
OIN
VE
RT
EB
RA
TE
S C
OL
LE
CT
ED
YE
AR
LY
AT
ST
AT
ION
1 F
RO
M G
OO
SE
RU
N I
N T
HE
VIC
INIT
Y O
F P
OT
TS
TO
WN
LA
ND
FIL
L,
MO
NT
GO
ME
RY
CO
UN
TY
, P
EN
NS
YL
VA
NIA
19
88
5/2
3
19
89
7/1
7
19
90
7/1
0
19
91
7/8
19
92
7/2
0
19
93
7/2
7
19
94
7/1
3
19
95
7/1
0
19
96
6/2
7
19
97
8/7
19
98
8/1
3
19
99
N/A
20
00
6/2
2
20
01
5/2
4
20
02
6/1
9
20
03
5/1
5
20
04
7/1
4
20
05
6/2
20
06
5/2
3
20
07
5/1
6
20
08
5/3
0
20
09
5/2
20
10
5/2
5
20
11
6/2
7
20
12
6/1
5
20
13
6/2
1
Ne
ure
clip
sis
11
1
Po
lyce
ntr
op
us
31
45
11
/61
5
Mo
llusca
G
astr
op
od
a
A
ncylid
ae
F
err
issia
31
81
1
L
ym
na
eid
ae
F
ossa
ria
23
24
3
P
hysid
ae
9/8
30
/8
P
hysa
/Ph
yse
lla2
12
19
35
25
/81
15
60
26
20
20
14
P
lan
orb
ida
e4
/65
/6
B
iva
lvia
Ve
ne
roid
a
S
ph
ae
riid
ae
9/8
P
isid
ium
16
35
02
11
/81
Ne
ma
tod
a1
/92
/9
Pla
tyh
elm
inth
es
T
urb
ella
ria
Tri
cla
did
a
P
lan
ari
da
e4
/9
P
lari
ida
e
Du
ge
sia
11
27
02
31
45
42
56
46
15
47
67
Ho
plo
ne
me
rtin
i
T
etr
aste
mm
atid
ae
Pro
sto
mo
sa
22
To
tal S
pe
cim
en
s3
61
64
42
09
84
19
72
29
55
79
12
33
17
33
13
19
10
70
19
71
08
49
50
45
86
87
53
64
13
78
16
48
64
21
26
69
57
45
57
04
47
24
7
To
tal T
axa
26
26
46
49
39
28
26
46
31
24
11
10
36
24
33
20
18
17
21
30
24
38
21
22
23
EP
T T
axa
79
14
10
93
31
17
63
11
55
12
10
77
78
41
23
37
EP
T/C
hir
on
om
ida
e R
atio
0.5
80
.56
0.6
60
.18
0.3
60
.05
0.1
20
.86
0.1
90
.38
1.3
50
.02
0.0
45
0.0
47
0.3
24
20
.04
16
67
0.4
89
0.2
61
0.0
70
.79
0.2
18
68
37
0.0
61
92
66
0.0
13
0.7
2
Div
ers
ity I
nd
ex
2.1
21
.99
2.2
61
.62
.16
1.7
21
.12
.41
.23
1.3
42
.57
1.3
50
.85
1.6
81
.88
1.7
71
.76
71
.62
1.3
1.2
52
.24
1.7
81
.05
0.8
11
.98
Eve
nn
ess
0.6
60
.60
.59
0.4
10
.59
0.5
20
.34
0.6
20
.37
0.4
20
.82
0.6
30
.17
0.3
81
0.3
70
.11
No
te:
Ce
lls d
ep
ictin
g d
ata
fro
m y
ea
r 2
00
4 in
clu
de
tw
o n
um
be
rs.
Th
e f
irst
nu
mb
er
rep
rese
nts
th
e n
um
be
r o
f sp
ecim
en
s
co
llecte
d a
t th
e s
tatio
n.
Th
e s
eco
nd
nu
mb
er
rep
rese
nts
th
e H
ilse
nh
off
Bio
tic I
nd
ex (
se
nsitiv
ity e
nu
me
ratio
n)
for
tha
t p
art
icu
lar
ge
nu
s a
nd
sp
ecie
s.
TABLE 4Station 4 Sample Results
TA
BL
E 4
MA
CR
OIN
VE
RT
EB
RA
TE
S C
OL
LE
CT
ED
YE
AR
LY
AT
ST
AT
ION
4 F
RO
M G
OO
SE
RU
N I
N T
HE
VIC
INIT
Y O
F P
OT
TS
TO
WN
LA
ND
FIL
L,
MO
NT
GO
ME
RY
CO
UN
TY
, P
EN
NS
YL
VA
NIA
1988
5/2
3
1989
7/1
7
1990
7/1
0
1991
7/8
1992
7/2
0
1993
7/2
7
1994
7/1
3
1995
7/1
0
1996
6/2
7
1997
8/7
1998
8/1
3
2000
6/2
2
2001
5/2
4
2002
6/1
9
2003
5/1
5
2004
7/1
4
2005
6/2
2006
5/2
3
2007
5/1
6
2008
5/3
0
2009
5/2
2010
5/2
5
2011
6/2
7
2012
6/1
5
2013
6/2
1
Annelid
a
H
irudin
ida
E
rpobdelli
dae
E
rpobdella
10
M
oore
obdella
27
1
O
ligochaeta
211/1
0151/1
0767/1
039/1
01
L
um
bri
cid
a
L
um
bri
cid
ae
34
82
210
10
77
916
2
L
um
bri
culid
a
L
um
bri
culid
ae
68
11
T
ubific
ida
T
ubific
idae
12
10
21
H
irudin
ea
1/8
6/8
M
egadri
lli64
22
4
Naid
idae
1
Arh
ynchobdelli
da
E
rpobdelli
dae
E
rpobdella
1/8
Art
hro
poda
C
rusta
cea
D
ecapoda
C
am
bari
dae
C
am
baru
s3
513
21
11
5/6
52
26
31
2
A
mphip
oda
G
am
mari
dae
C
rangonyx
35
30
93
12
26
44/6
13
10
871
66
26
28
13
8
G
am
maru
s10
118
48/6
26/6
117/6
S
tygobro
mis
19
T
alit
ridae
H
yale
lla1
H
yale
llidae
H
yale
lla11
39
22
IN
SE
CT
A
C
ole
opte
ra
D
ryopid
ae
Helic
hus
12
3
D
ytiscid
ae
11/5
Agabus
14
153/5
6/5
133/5
11
18
48
1
Dytiscus
555
Hydro
poru
s11
422
46
417
24
983/5
17/5
168/5
30
14
53
45
192
35
16
19
Laccophilu
s7
11
Neoporu
s13
E
lmid
ae
Ancyro
nx
1
Dubir
aphia
11
94
85
61
21
26
1
Optioserv
us
339
37
100
24
61
21
14
Oulim
niu
s6/5
Macro
nychus
1
Ste
nelm
is3
12
49
150
82
121
27
13
18
13
31/5
13/5
24/5
13/5
14
38
20
17
12
3
H
alip
lidae
Ple
todyte
s9
12
14
39
12
42/5
10
15
218
90
44
10
H
ydro
phili
dae
12
Anacaena
Bero
sus
26
37
21
213
2
Dera
llus
1
Enochru
s5
1
Helo
chare
s1/N
A
Hydro
biu
s2
1
Hydro
chara
2
Para
cym
us
13
1
Tro
pis
tern
us
22
1
TA
BL
E 4
MA
CR
OIN
VE
RT
EB
RA
TE
S C
OL
LE
CT
ED
YE
AR
LY
AT
ST
AT
ION
4 F
RO
M G
OO
SE
RU
N I
N T
HE
VIC
INIT
Y O
F P
OT
TS
TO
WN
LA
ND
FIL
L,
MO
NT
GO
ME
RY
CO
UN
TY
, P
EN
NS
YL
VA
NIA
1988
5/2
3
1989
7/1
7
1990
7/1
0
1991
7/8
1992
7/2
0
1993
7/2
7
1994
7/1
3
1995
7/1
0
1996
6/2
7
1997
8/7
1998
8/1
3
2000
6/2
2
2001
5/2
4
2002
6/1
9
2003
5/1
5
2004
7/1
4
2005
6/2
2006
5/2
3
2007
5/1
6
2008
5/3
0
2009
5/2
2010
5/2
5
2011
6/2
7
2012
6/1
5
2013
6/2
1
H
elo
phori
dae
Helo
phoru
s1
P
sephenid
ae
1
Psephenus
29
27
28
282
246
39
527
14
21/4
18/4
8/4
42
13
222
31
110
4
D
ipte
ra2/N
A
A
theri
cid
ae
Ath
enix
11
C
era
topogonid
ae
7/6
Atr
ichopogon
27
21
Bezz
ialP
alp
om
yia
12
23
116
11
1
Pro
bezz
ia4
C
haobori
dae
1
C
hir
onom
idae
449
77
1280
1306
380
345
910
412
1134
332
79
132
311/6
221/6
1154/6
29/6
808
49
343
236
252
316
328
78
268
C
ulic
idae
11
Anophele
s1
D
olic
hopodid
ae
1
E
mpid
idae
9/6
Hem
ero
dro
mia
416
22
4/6
E
phydri
dae
1/6
M
uscid
ae
Lim
nophora
1/6
P
sychodid
ae
Peri
com
a
S
imulii
dae
12/6
14/6
Sim
uliu
m8
18
31
31
240
5/6
S
tratiom
yid
ae
11
Str
atiom
ys
1
T
abanid
ae
1/6
T
abanus
2/6
12
Chry
sops
21
1
1
S
cio
myzid
ae
1/N
A1
Sepedon
1
T
ipulid
ae
1
Anto
cha
12
36
11
Dic
ranota
4
Tip
ula
44
10
81
82/4
2/4
2/4
1/4
13
210
4
E
phem
ero
pte
ra
B
aetidae
Baetis
80
91
472
177
97
11
27
9123/6
263/6
113/6
3/6
72
36
415
Calli
baetis
57
16
16/
Clo
eon
3
Centr
optilu
m176
72
24
4
C
aenid
ae
Caenis
40
36
29
26
46
78
991/7
3/7
24/7
5/7
40
435
48
30
33
19
E
phem
ere
llidae
Dru
nella
46
Ephem
ere
lla31/1
1/1
20/1
3
Eury
lophella
112
14/4
23/4
45
210
12
16
Serr
ate
lla68
13
25
E
phem
eri
dae
2
Hexagenia
H
epta
geniid
ae
2
Epeoru
s7/
Maccaff
ert
ium
1
Ste
nacro
n16
411
25
42
13
2/3
3/3
100
18
44
5180
151
26
39
Ste
nonem
a2
220/3
3/3
2/3
Is
onychiid
ae
Isonychia
1
Lepto
phle
biid
ae
Lepto
phle
bia
51/4
59/4
Para
lepto
phle
bia
16
11
12
214
108
24
TA
BL
E 4
MA
CR
OIN
VE
RT
EB
RA
TE
S C
OL
LE
CT
ED
YE
AR
LY
AT
ST
AT
ION
4 F
RO
M G
OO
SE
RU
N I
N T
HE
VIC
INIT
Y O
F P
OT
TS
TO
WN
LA
ND
FIL
L,
MO
NT
GO
ME
RY
CO
UN
TY
, P
EN
NS
YL
VA
NIA
1988
5/2
3
1989
7/1
7
1990
7/1
0
1991
7/8
1992
7/2
0
1993
7/2
7
1994
7/1
3
1995
7/1
0
1996
6/2
7
1997
8/7
1998
8/1
3
2000
6/2
2
2001
5/2
4
2002
6/1
9
2003
5/1
5
2004
7/1
4
2005
6/2
2006
5/2
3
2007
5/1
6
2008
5/3
0
2009
5/2
2010
5/2
5
2011
6/2
7
2012
6/1
5
2013
6/2
1
Habro
phle
boid
es
6
S
iphlo
nuri
dae
Sip
hlo
nuru
s2
O
ligoneuri
idae
Isonychia
15
61
T
ricory
thid
ae
Tri
cory
thodes
65
121
50
14
31
3
H
em
ipte
ra
C
ori
xid
ae
Sig
ara
75
61
14
59
11
810
23
22
444
3
Hespero
cori
xa
15
5/N
A5/N
A1/N
A
Tri
chocori
xa
G
err
idae
Aquari
us
1/N
A1
Gerr
is1
61
41
Metr
obate
s9
Rheum
ato
bate
s1
Tre
pobate
s1
11
12
Noto
nectidae
Noto
necta
13
V
elii
dae
Mic
rovelia
68
16
16
51
31
Lepid
opte
ra
N
octu
idae
6/N
A
Rhagovelia
31
21
36
4
M
egalo
pte
ra
C
ory
dalid
ae
Nig
ronia
3
S
ialid
ae
Sia
lis3
26
14
13
430
23
16
42
2/6
2/6
20/6
11
O
donata
A
eshnid
ae
Aeshna
16
33
Boyenia
31
1/2
21
C
oenagri
onid
ae
15
Arg
ia1
11
43/N
A2
Enalla
gm
a3
12
Ischnura
42
G
om
phid
ae
4/4
Gom
phus
17
21
11/N
A
Lanth
us
32
46
57
31
2/4
1
Sty
logom
phus
31
15
10
45
25/4
11
838
37
48
1
L
estidae
Leste
s
L
ibellu
lidae
Lib
ellu
la1
Calo
pte
rygid
ae
C
alo
pte
ryx
11
12
P
lecopte
ra
N
em
ouri
dae
Am
phin
em
ura
36
45/3
3/3
16/3
44
P
erl
idae
Acro
neuri
a1
1142/0
8/1
15/0
2
Agnetina
22
24
Eccoptu
ra1
11
Neoperl
a3
24
47
11
Perl
esta
32
250/4
15
49
48
60
114
P
erl
odid
ae
Isoperl
a83/2
17/2
14
1
T
ricopte
ra
G
lossosom
atidae
TA
BL
E 4
MA
CR
OIN
VE
RT
EB
RA
TE
S C
OL
LE
CT
ED
YE
AR
LY
AT
ST
AT
ION
4 F
RO
M G
OO
SE
RU
N I
N T
HE
VIC
INIT
Y O
F P
OT
TS
TO
WN
LA
ND
FIL
L,
MO
NT
GO
ME
RY
CO
UN
TY
, P
EN
NS
YL
VA
NIA
1988
5/2
3
1989
7/1
7
1990
7/1
0
1991
7/8
1992
7/2
0
1993
7/2
7
1994
7/1
3
1995
7/1
0
1996
6/2
7
1997
8/7
1998
8/1
3
2000
6/2
2
2001
5/2
4
2002
6/1
9
2003
5/1
5
2004
7/1
4
2005
6/2
2006
5/2
3
2007
5/1
6
2008
5/3
0
2009
5/2
2010
5/2
5
2011
6/2
7
2012
6/1
5
2013
6/2
1
Glo
ssosom
a1/1
H
ydro
psychid
ae
1/5
Cheum
ato
psyche
224
184
219
44
78
22
92
13/6
40/6
61/6
12
2
Cera
topsyche
2/5
Hydro
psyche
12
143
65
67
535
111
151/5
1/5
22
H
ydro
ptilid
ae
Hydro
ptila
23/6
1/6
1
Lepid
osto
matidae
Lepid
osto
ma
38
Lepto
ceri
dae
Mysta
cid
es
11
18
13
12
81
Oecetis
Lim
nephili
dae
3/4
Hydato
phyla
x7
Pycnopsyche
3
P
hilo
pto
mid
ae
Chim
arr
a6
14
55
233
241
16
817/4
2/4
24
P
oly
centr
opodid
ae
Neure
clip
sis
Nyctiophyla
x1
Poly
centr
opus
517
14
11
4/6
1/6
1/6
28
3
Mollu
sca
G
astr
opoda
A
ncylid
ae
F
err
issia
721
11
1
L
ym
naeid
ae
F
ossari
a2
12
11
P
hysid
ae
812/8
30/8
P
hysa/P
hysella
13
721
35
430
145/8
44
14
14
42
12
71
8
P
lanorb
idae
2/6
7/6
24/6
Pla
norb
ella
/Helis
om
a1
15
23/6
1
G
yra
ulu
s3
B
ivalv
ia
Venero
ida
S
phaeri
idae
2/8
P
isid
ium
112
18
51
31/8
2
Pla
tyhelm
inth
es
T
urb
ella
ria
Tri
cla
did
a
P
lanari
idae
23/9
Dugesia
47
218
72
36
18
10
12
14
Hoplo
nem
ert
ini
T
etr
aste
mm
atidae
Pro
sto
mosa
3
Tota
l S
pecim
ens
966
303
2501
3015
1576
810
1244
716
1570
568
118
182
1235
950
2781
432
1304
181
572
643
1276
927
546
170
426
Tota
l T
axa
30
20
38
56
50
42
36
33
32
21
11
10
31
30
35
23
37
21
27
33
31
34
28
16
25
EP
T T
axa
12
611
15
16
11
99
62
32
13
11
15
89
815
10
11
14
54
8
EP
T/C
hir
onom
idae R
atio
0.9
31.9
10.7
30.6
80.8
30.2
90.1
40.2
20.2
10.0
30.1
40.0
82.0
51.9
30.2
72.6
90.4
21.1
00.3
50.5
67
1.7
41.1
30.0
27
0.2
44
0.3
3
Div
ers
ity I
ndex
2.0
12.0
71.7
62.2
62.6
12.1
51.3
11.7
51.2
51.5
71.7
11.0
13.7
23.1
52.6
92.1
32.1
33
2.2
91.6
2.2
12.5
82.4
11.5
81.9
81.6
2
Evenness
0.6
0.7
0.4
80.5
60.6
70.5
90.3
70.5
0.3
70.5
30.5
40.4
60.7
70.6
60.5
30.4
1
Note
: C
ells
for
years
2001th
rough 2
004 inclu
de t
wo n
um
bers
. T
he f
irst
num
ber
repre
sents
the
num
ber
of
specim
ens c
olle
cte
d a
t th
e s
tation.
The s
econd n
um
ber
repre
sents
the H
ilsenhoff
Bio
tic
Index (
sensitiv
ity e
num
era
tion)
for
that
part
icula
r genus a
nd s
pecie
s.
APPENDIX EResumes of STV Personnel
APPE
ND
IX E
1
SERVING THE ENERGY INDUSTRY
Resumes
Steven Sottung, LEED®APENVIRONMENTAL MANAGER
FIRMSTV
EDUCATIONBACHELOR OF SCIENCE, MARINE BIOLOGY; ST. FRANCIS COLLEGE OF THE UNIVERSITY OF NEW ENGLAND
TRAINING/CERTIFICATIONSLEADERSHIP IN ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN; U.S. GREEN BUILDING COUNCIL
BASIC 40-HOUR OSHA HAZARDOUS WASTE OPERATIONS AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE CERTIFICATION AND 8-HOUR REFRESHERS (ANNUALLY)
PROJECT MANAGEMENT TRAINING; PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY
SITE SUPERVISORS TRAINING
PUBLICATIONS“CHANGING CHANNELS” PUBLISHED IN CIVIL ENGINEERING, JULY 2002. BY THOMAS RADOS, STEVEN SOTTUNG, DEBORAH DESCARO, AND ROGER ZYMA
MEMBERSHIPSPENNSYLVANIA ASSOCIATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROFESSIONALS
Mr. Sottung is an environmental scientist and project manager with more than 20 years of diversified environmental experience. He has had extensive involvement in media characterization for hazardous waste constituents, soil remediation design, detailed site investigations, ecological risk assessment, and benthic macroinvertebrate, and fish sampling methods for private and government clients. He also coordinates efforts with local, state, and federal environmental regulatory agencies and is experienced in client management, project scoping, conflict resolution, cost tracking, project budgets, manpower scheduling and tracking, administration, and management of various subcontractor agreements for each project.
Project ExperienceSunoco Pipeline Boot Road Petroleum Product Pipeline Replacement - Environmental ScientistPerformed environmental permitting tasks for replacement and rerouting of two 4.4-mile petroleum products pipelines. Work involved the collection and review of relevant siting information for the entire project area, including wetlands, soils, critical habitats, sensitive watersheds, floodplain areas, cultural/archeological resources, and active/abandoned waste disposal areas. The project also included environmental resource base mapping and a regulatory analysis.
Sunoco Pipeline Point Breeze Pipeline Replacement Study - Environmental ScientistPerformed environmental and permitting needs analysis for a pipeline replacement study at the site in Philadelphia, PA. Environmental analysis included wetland delineation, WET 2.0, habitat evaluation, and threatened and endangered species surveys. Mr. Sottung prepared a joint permit application for PADER and USACE.
Sunoco Pipeline Phase I Environmental Property Audit for the Midpoint Booster Station - Project Environmental ScientistConducted a Phase I environmental property audit at the site in Gloucester County, NJ, in accordance with the most recent ASTM Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessment: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process (E1527-93). The audit consisted of a site reconnaissance, review of aerial photographs and pertinent maps, and an environmental database and regulatory records review. Mr. Sottung conducted interviews with NJDEP and USEPA personnel familiar with the site, performed a review of past and present site use activities, and prepared a detailed technical report. The audit used historical documents, aerial photographs, visual observations, public records, and regulatory databases in order to characterize recognized environmental conditions at the site.
ExxonMobil Pipeline Delaware River Crossing - Senior Environmental ScientistPerformed the initial permitting and coordintation efforts for permits in New Jersey and Pennsylvania for the installation of the Paulsboro to Malvern 12-inch petroleum products pipeline in Philadelphia, PA. Mr. Sottung contributed to the feasibility study which addressed pipeline replacement options, permitting requirements, engineering and construction issues, and budgetary cost estimates. He monitored the environmental aspects as the project proceeded through design and construction.
2 Resumes
SERVING THE ENERGY INDUSTRY
DuPage County Division of Transportation Munger Road Study - Project Environmental ScientistPerformed an assessment of environmental setting conditions along a 4-mile transportation corridor located in DuPage County, IL. The project area walk included visual evaluations of environmental factors including wetlands, surface waters, potential hazardous waste areas, drainage features including natural swales and man-made structures, terrestrial habitat, soils, and evident cultural resources. Mr. Sottung performed a review of applicable state and federal agency regulations and requirements relative to foreseeable environmental permits, certifications, and approvals. He provided a narrative description of environmental conditions that was integrated into a larger alternatives analysis report.
Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission Mon/Fayette Transportation Project - Project Environ-mental ScientistPerformed field/design studies and prepared PS&E package documents for the remediation of 11 sites in the northern section of the Mon/Fayette transportation project in Pennsylvania. Mr. Sottung reviewed all available data found in previous evaluations and assisted in the implementation of field site characterizations.
USDA Underground Storage Tank Removal and Closure - Project Environmental SupervisorPerformed planning, field operations (excavation and removal, soil sampling), and closure reporting for removal of one two underground storage tanks in Wyndmoor, PA. Mr. Sottung prepared a health and safety plan (HASP) and materials management plan for the project. He collected confirmation samples in accordance with Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) protocols and coordinated the disposal of all contaminated soils and tanks during removal activities. Mr. Sottung also reviewed and interpreted analytical data and developed the closure reports for the tank removal.
Pennsylvania Army National Guard Stryker Brigade Readiness Centers - Environmental Scientist Providing environmental studies and permitting services for the $200 million transformation of the 56th Brigade program into a Stryker Brigade Combat Team. The supporting program involves the design and construction of multiple facilities at 21 sites in Pennsylvania. These facilities include new or renovated Readiness Centers and Field Maintenance Shops.
FLETC Environmental Program – Environmental Program ManagerManaged all aspects of NEPA Environmental Assessments, environmental remediation, and an Environmental Management System (EMS) for Federal Law Enforcement Training Centers in Cheltenham, MD; Glynco, GA; Charleston, SC; and Artesia, NM in support of facility expansions and renovations. The environmental program has been performed as a subconsultant.
Steven Sottung, LEED®APENVIRONMENTAL MANAGER
1
SERVING THE ENERGY INDUSTRY
Resumes
Amanda SchellhamerENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTIST
FIRMSTV
EDUCATIONBACHELOR OF SCIENCE, AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES; MINOR, WILDLIFE AND FISHERIES SCIENCE, PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY
TRAINING40-HOUR HAZWOPER; OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH ADMINISTRATION (OSHA)
Ms. Schellhamer is an environmental scientist with experience in environmental surveys and investigation, permitting, and preparation of compliance documentation. Her expertise includes wetland delineation, forest stand delineation, macroinvertebrate sampling, habitat evaluation, GPS surveys, data collection, and data analysis for the purpose of obtaining federal, state, and local permits for water quality, wetland, and forest conservation regulation.
Project ExperienceBGE Mt. Airy to Westminster Pipeline Relocation - Environmental ScientistConducting forest stand delineations for an 11-mile pipeline construction project for Baltimore Gas and Electric (BGE) in Carroll County, MD. Ms. Schellhamer is completing forest stand delineations to determine the amount of forest to be mitigated as a result of the project, and calculating an exact count of the number of stems to be affected and determining how to mitigate for the forest impact. She is also assisting in the permitting process.
Sunoco Pipeline L.P. Allegheny Access Project - Environmental Scientist Conducting environmental investigations of Sunoco’s front-end engineering and design study to recommission a pipeline stretching from Inland Fostoria West, OH, to Mogadore, OH, as well as the installation of a new pipeline from Mogadore, OH, to Vanport Junction, PA. Ms. Schellhamer is identifying wetland, waterways, and other environmentally sensitive resources. Using a GPS Trimble system, she has performed wetland delineations and picked up survey points. Ms. Schellhamer has also assisted in the preparation of permits for wetland and waterway impacts and prepared wetland data sheets and Ohio Rapid Assessment Method forms as part of the permitting process.
PPL Transmission ROW Encroachment - Environmental Scientist Conducting site assessments to identify environmental constraints in support of PPL’s review and mitigation of ground clearance discrepancies along its right of way (ROW). The discrepancies that are outside of design tolerances of transmission lines were identified by PPL’s North American Electric Reliability Council (NERC) assessment plan. Ms. Schellhamer is also preparing aerial imagery and creating points for site access.
Sunoco Logistics-SEPTA Wawa Parking Lot - Environmental InternConducted wetland delineation and completed a Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection general permit No. 5 Utility Line Stream Crossing Application for the 0.5-mile relocation of an 8-inch Sunoco petroleum products line in Delaware County, PA. The pipeline relocation was required to avoid property conflicts with commercial retailer Wawa Dairy Farms and to allow SEPTA to build a new commuter train station.
PVR Marcellus Gas Gathering Wellsboro - Environmental Scientist Conducted site assessment to identify wetland, waterways, and other environmentally sensitive resources for a 22-mile, 24-inch Penn Virginia Resource Partners (PVR) natural gas gathering system in Tioga County, PA. Ms. Schellhamer also assisted in wetland delineations and marked survey points with the use of a GPS Trimble system.
2 Resumes
SERVING THE ENERGY INDUSTRY
PVR Midstream Gas Gathering Pipeline - Environmental InternAssisted in wetland delineations and determined survey points with the use of a GPS Trimble system for the installation of 9 miles of 16-inch to 24-inch natural gas gathering pipeline in Wyoming and Susquehanna counties, PA, for Penn Virginia Resource (PVR) Midstream.
Waste Management Macroinvertebrate Monitoring Report - Environmental InternCollected macroinvertebrate samples at the Waste Management property in Pottstown, PA. Ms. Schellhamer performed biological and physiochemical assessments in accordance with applicable state and federal recommendations and guidelines to satisfy the requirements of Condition 14 of Waste Management’s operating permit. She also assisted with the completion of the subsequent annual report.
Warner Company John T. Dyer Quarry Expansion - Environmental InternAssisted with well monitoring sampling for submittal to state agencies as part of the permitting requirements for this facility in Berks County, PA. The project included mine planning, subsurface, and groundwater investigations, surface mine permitting, and engineering services for the 60-acre expansion of an existing diabase quarry to allow continued operations.
Amanda SchellhamerENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTIST